2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-12-2010 

# Q in C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3909

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Qin C he n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2078. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/2078I M G - 035 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3909

___________ QI N C HE N, Pet i t i oner v . ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 94- 787- 633) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e H enryS. D ogi n

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember27, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, R O T H A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary12, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerQ i n C hen i s a ci t i zen of C hi na. H e ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n 2006 w ith o u t i n sp ec ti o n an d w as c h arg ed as re m o v ab le. B ef o re the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”), C hen conc eded r emovabi l i t yand s oughtas y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde r2

t he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . T he I J deni ed al l r el i ef a nd the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s ed hi s s ubs equentappea l . C hen then fi l ed a p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I C hen bas ed hi s r eques t s forr el i ef on hi s pr act i ce of Fal un G ong, w hi ch i s out l aw ed in C h in a . C h e n te s tif

ie d th a t, a s a te e n a g e r, h e s u f f e re d f ro m p o o r h e a lth . In 2 0 0 3 , a frien d inv it ed h im to p rac ti ce F alun G o n g , su g g esti n g that itm igh t i m p rov e C h en ’s heal t h. C hen s t at ed thathe bega n pr act i ci ng atthe home of hi s fr i end’ s uncl e and c o n tin u e d to d o s o o n c e a w e e k f ro m e a rl y2 0 0 3 u n til D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 . I n D ece m ber2005, pol i ce r ai ded the uncl e’ s hous e dur i ng a meet i ng of Fal un G ong pr act i t i oner s , i ncl udi ng C hen. C hen w as arr es t ed; he t es t i fi ed thathe w as beat en, hanged ups i de dow n, and i nt err ogat ed. H e w as hel d forabouta mont h and r el eas ed w hen hi s m ot herpai d a s ubs t ant i al fee . A l t hough hi s m otherpai d forC hen’ s r el eas e, s he recei ved no recei pt. C hen exp l ai ned that the p oli ce w ou l d n ot gi ve o ut a r ecei pt because t he fe e hi s m ot herpai d w as a br i be, notoffi ci al bai l . C hen w as al s o r equi r ed t o s i gn a documents t at i ng t hathe r enounce d Fal un G ong, al t hough he pr oduced no c opyof the documentathi s r emoval hear i ng, and the pol i ce i ns t ruct ed hi m t o r epor tonce pe rw eek. A ft erhi s r el eas e, C hen w as as s aul t ed on the s t r eetbypol i ce w hen he w as s een as s oci at i ng w i t h a gr oup of fr i ends , pr es um abl ybeca us e the pol i ce be l i eved he w as engagi ng i n act i vi t i es r el at ed t o Fal un G ong. B eca us e he f el ti nt ens e pr es s ur e and f ear3

fr om havi ng t o r epor tt o pol i ce a nd notas s oci at e w i t h hi s fr i ends , C hen l eftC hi na fort he U n ited S tate s in 2 0 0 6 . C h e n n o w liv e s in a re sid e n c e o w n e d b yh is b o ss , n o t f a r f ro m h is f a t h e r ’ s h o m e i n N e w J e r s e y. In a d d it ion to h is ow n test im o n yb ef o re the IJ, C h en p rese n ted u n sw o rn lett ers fr om hi s m ot herand the fr i end w ho i ntr oduced hi m t o Fal un G ong. C hen al s o s ubm i t t ed s om e pi ctur es of hi m s el f pos i ng w i t h unknow n pr act i t i oner s ata pr o- Fal un G ong d e m o n s tr a tio n in W a s h in g to n , D .C . T h e IJ d e n ied a ll relie f

, rea so n in g th a t C h e n f

a iled to su f

f icie n tlyc o rro b o ra te h is c l a i m t h a th e e x p e r i e n c e d o rf a c e d p e r s e c u t i o n f

o rp r a c t i c i n g F a l u n G o n g . S p e c i f i c a l l y, the IJ n o ted th at C h en fa il ed to p rod u ce an yev iden ce that h e w as in p o o r he alth b ef o re s t ar t i ng Fal un G ong, s o as t o es t abl i s h t hathe eve rbegan t o pr act i ce i t , orthathe w as ever arr es t ed, bai l ed out , orfor ced t o r enounce Fal un G ong. T he I J fur thernot ed thatal t hough he w entt o t he tr oubl e of obt ai ni ng uns w orn l ett er s fr om i ndi vi dual s i n C hi na – i ncl udi ng hi s m ot her , w ho had an i nt er es ti n t he out come of t he ca s e – C hen di d notpr oduce aff i davi t s fr om hi s fatherorbos s , w ho bot h l i ve nea rhi m i n t he U ni t ed St at es , orl ocal Fal un G ong pr act i t i oner s , w ho coul d at t es tt o hi s cont i nued pr act i ce of Fal un G ong. T he IJ a lso q u e stio n e d th e v e ra c ityo f C h e n ’s c laim , citin g in c o n sis ten c ies a n d w e a k n e ss e s in his t est i m on yand otherevidence. T he IJ how ever, did not m ake an exp res s adverse cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. T he B I A di s m i s s ed C hen’ s appea l , r eas oni ng thatthe I J pr oper l ydet erm i ned that4

C h e n f a iled to o f

f e r su f f icie n t co rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e o r a d e q u a te e x p lan a tio n s f o r h is fai l ur e t o pr oduce s uch evi dence . II W e have j ur i s di ct i on overC hen’ s pet i t i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . B eca us e the B I A i s s ued i t s ow n opi ni on, w e r evi ew i t s deci s i on r atherthan thatof the I J . See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . H ow ever , w e al s o l ook t o t he dec i s i on of t he I J t o t he ext entt hatt he B I A defe r s t o oradopt s the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. See C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F. 3d 508, 515 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W e r evi ew agenc yfac tual det erm i nat i ons fors ubs t ant i al evi dence and w i l l uphol d s uch det erm i nat i ons “unl es s the evi dence not onl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zhang v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 150, 1 5 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). A s an i nit i al m at t er, w e rei t erat e t hat the IJ di d n ot m ake an exp l i ci tadv ers e c re d ib ili tyf

in d in g , co n tra ryto C h e n ’s a ss e rtio n . H e m e re lyn o ted in c o n sis ten c ies in C hen’ s t es t i m onyand expr es s ed s om e doubt s abouthi s s t oryas a r es ul t . W e have s ever al t i me s a f f i r me d t h e ru l e t h a ti n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n e x p l i c i ta d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t yf i n d i n g , we m u st pro ce ed as if the ap p li ca n t’ s testi m o n yw ere cre d ible an d d eterm ine w h ethe r th e IJ’s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . See Toure v. A G , 443 F. 3d 310, 325- 26 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ; L us i ngo v. G onzal es , 420 F. 3d 193, 197 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; L i , 400 F. 3d a t1 6 3 - 1 6 4 ; Ka y e mb e v . As h c r o f t , 3 3 4 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we w il l presu m e the cre d ibil ityo f C h en ’s t esti m o n yan d p roc ee d to ev alua te th e A g en cy ’sT hi s s t andar d appl i es t o cl ai m s forr el i ef, s uch as C hen’ s , thatw er e fi l ed af t erthe 1 enac t m entof the R E A L I D A ctof 2005. See C hukw u, 484 F. 3d at192 & n. 2. T he I J not ed thathe under s t ood w hyC hen’ s father , w ho appar ent l yr emai ns i n t he 2 countr ydes pi t e an or derof deport at i on, w oul d notcome t o t he r emoval hear i ng, but ex p resse d d o u b ts ab o u t C h en ’s claim b ec au se h e c o u ld h av e e asil yo b tai n ed a sw o rn s t at ementfr om hi s father , w ho w oul d nothave be en r equi r ed t o appea ratthe hea r i ng. 5 concl us i on t hatC hen fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng el i gi bi l i t ybeca us e he f ai l ed to p ro v id e re a s o n a b le c o rr o b o ra tio n . A fai l ur e t o corr obor at e maybe r el i ed on t o denyr el i ef w hen “( 1) the I J i dent i fi es fac t s forw hi ch i ti s r eas onabl e t o expec tthe appl i cantt o pr oduce c orr obor at i on, ( 2) the appl i cantfai l s t o corr obor at e, and ( 3) the appl i cantfai l s t o adequa t el yexpl ai n t hat fai l ur e. ” C hukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 484 F. 3d 185, 191- 92 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng T our e, 443 F . 3 d at 32 3 ; A b d u lai v . A sh cro ft, 2 3 9 F . 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). H ere , the B IA 1 aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on on t he gr ound thatC hen s houl d have pr ovi ded evi dence fr om h is f a th e r o r b o ss th a t w o u ld h e lp d e m o n stra te h is a d h e re n c e to F a lu n G o n g . C h e n m e re ly pr oduced uns w or n s t at ement s fr om hi s m otherand fr i end, as w el l as a phot ogr aph of h im se lf w ith F a lu n G o n g p ra c tit io n e rs a t a r a lly . H o w e v e r, d e sp ite h is te stim o n yth a t h is fat her kne w of h i s Falun G on g p ract i ce and that he l i ved w i t h – or atl eastnear – h i s boss, C hen fa i l ed t o obt ai n anys t at ement s fr om them aboutw hetherhe ac tual l yadher es t o t he pr act i ce. W e agr ee thatC hen coul d have e as i l yobt ai ned s uch evi dence and thathe

2 unr eas onabl ypr ovi ded no expl anat i on forhi s fai l ur e t o corr obor at e hi s cl ai m i n t hat r egar d.6

B eca us e the I J conduct ed the r equi r ed i nqui r yand r eas onabl yconcl uded thatC hen f a iled to o f

f e r a d e q u a te r e a so n s f

o r h is f a ilu re to c o rro b o ra te h is c laim s f o r re lief , w e w ill uphol d t he B I A deci s i on aff i r m i ng the deni al of r el i ef. W e have cons i der ed C hen’ s ot her ar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude thattheyl ack mer i t . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.