2005 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 10-26-2005 

# G a o 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 . 05-1040

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_2005

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 2005 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 " G a o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 340. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/340

### NO T P RE CE DENT I AL

UN ITED ST AT ES CO UR T O F A PP EA LS FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT No. 05- 1040 YU E X I ANGA O, Peti ti on er

v.

* A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S , A t t orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent

* (S u b sti tuted p u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . R u le 43 (c)) Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A 97- 442- 074) S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

O ct ober24, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es, and TH O M PSO N , D i s t r i ctJ udge ** ( Fi l ed: O ct ober26, 2005) OP I NI ON

______________ ** H on. A nne E. T hom ps on, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. Pet i t i onerY ue X i an G ao ( “G ao”) , a ci t i zen of C hi na, pet i t i ons forr evi ew of a f i nal o rd e r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d e n y in g h e r a p p lica tio n f o r re lief in t he form s of as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . W e mustdeci de w hethers ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B IA ’s f in d in g th a t G a o ’s c la im s la c k e d c re d ib ility. I . G ao arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es w i t h herm i nors on, J i an C heng G ao, atornear N ew ark, N ew J er s ey , i n February2004. O n M ar ch 9, 2004, the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y( “D H S”) i s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppeart o G ao cha r gi ng herand hers on as in a d m iss ib le p u rsu a n t to se c tio n 2 1 2 (a )(7 )(A )(i)(I) o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t, 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )(7 )(A )(i)(I) (2 0 0 0 ), as a lien s n o t in p o ss e ss io n o f a v a lid unexpi r ed i m m i gr antvi s a orot herval i d entr ydocumentatthe t i m e of thei rappl i cat i on foradmi s s i on t o t he U ni t ed St at es . D H S al s o char ged G ao w i t h bei ng i nadmi s s i bl e for f a ls e ly re p re s e n tin g h e rs e lf to b e a U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n . A ta pr el i m i naryhear i ng befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , G ao, w ho w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el , admi t t ed t o notbei ng i n pos s es s i on of a va l i d unexpi r ed i m m i gr antvi s a att he t i m e of he rappl i cat i on foradmi s s i on butdeni ed the al l egat i on of fal s el yr epr es ent i ng her s el f t o be a U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. G ao appl i ed forr el i ef f r om re m o v a l in th e f

o rm s o f a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, a n d p ro te c tio n u n d e r t h e C A T .3

A therevi dent i aryhear i ng, G ao t es t i fi ed thathercl ai m s forr el i ef s t emm ed fr om herr efus al t o compl yw i t h t he C hi nes e fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy . G ao t es t i fi ed that , aft er t he bi r t h of hers on i n 1995, s he had s i gned a “ one chi l d” ce r t i fi cat e, pr om i s i ng thats he and herhus band w oul d nothave otherchi l dr en. T he C hi nes e governm entcompensa t ed G ao an d h er h u sb an d fo r th eir co m p li an ce w ith the re q u ir em en ts of the c erti fica te. In 1998, G ao bec ame pr egnantagai n aft ers he had a pr i vat e doct orr emove t he r equi r ed I nt r aut er i ne D evi ce ( “I U D ”) . She t es t i fi ed thatC hi nes e fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ci al s for ced hert o under go an abort i on. She al s o t es t i fi ed that , i f r eturned t o C hi na, s he w oul d be s u b je c te d to f

o rc e d s te ri liz a tio n . O n J ul y29, 2004, t he I J deni ed G ao’ s cl ai m s forr el i ef f i ndi ng thathert es t i m ony l acke d cr edi bi l i t y , and or der ed G ao and he rs on r emoved t o C hi na. I n m aki ng her d eterm ination , the IJ re li ed , in p art, o n ev iden ce su b m itted b yD H S reg ard ing G ao ’s h u sb a n d ’s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n . G a o ’s h u sb a n d (“ M r. G a o ” ) c a m e to th e U n ited S tate s in A u g u st o f

1 9 9 9 se e k in g a sy lu m b a se d o n h is w if e ’s f o rc e d a b o rtio n a n d h is re f u sa l to compl yw i t h t he C hi nes e fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy . A thi s hear i ng, i tw as det erm i ned that an “ab ort i on cert i fi cat e” subm i t t ed b yM r. G ao w as fr aud ulent . T he IJ i n the i nst ant cas e not ed that , i n l i ghtof M r . G ao’ s s ubm i s s i on of fr audul entdocument at i on r egar di ng the abo rt i on , G ao’s s ub m i ssi on of u nau t hen t i cat ed an d u nco rr ob orat ed d ocu m ents “rai ses a n u m b e r o f

q u e s tio n s in th e m in d o f th e C o u rt .” A p p . a t 4 8 . G ao appe al ed the I J ’ s adver s e dec i s i on t o t he B I A . O n D ece m ber10, 2004, the4

B I A found thatG ao fa i l ed t o m eetherbur den of pr oof i n es t abl i s hi ng hercl ai m s for r el i ef. T he B I A hel d t hatt he I J di d noterri n cons i der i ng the for ens i cs r epor ts ubm i t t ed b yD H S re g a rd in g th e a u th e n ticityo f th e a b o rtio n c e rtific a te th a t M r. G a o su b m itt e d in su p p o rto f h is asy lum ap p li ca ti o n . P arti cu larl y , the B IA n o ted th at th e f o ren sics rep o rt “w as admi t t ed w i t houtobj ect i on, t hatthe r epor ti s pr obat i ve, and thatthe l ead r es pondent wa s g i v e n a n o p p o r tu n i t yt o r e b u ta n ya d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e wh i c h mi g h tb e d r a wn th e re f ro m .” A p p . at 2 . F u rth e r, th e B IA f o u n d a m p le b a sis in th e a b se n c e o f th e re p o rt to su p p o rta f

ind ing that G ao fa il ed to m ee t her b u rde n o f p roo f. T h ere fo re, th e B IA a f f ir m e d th e IJ ’s d e c is io n a n d d is m is s e d G a o ’s a p p e a l. I I . W her e the B I A s ubs t ant i al l yr el i es on t he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on of the IJ, w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew b o th th e B IA ’s a n d th e IJ’ s o p in io n s. X ie v . A sh c ro f t, 359 F. 3d 239, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons under th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . C h e n v . A s h c ro f t, 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). U ndert hi s defe r ent i al s t andar d, w e w i l l uphol d t he cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on of the B I A or I J unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” I d. ( ci t i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ) . T hus , i f a r eas onabl e fa ctfi ndercoul d m ake a n adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on bas ed upon the admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d, then the age ncy det erm i nat i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 249 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).5

T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l h a s d is c re tio n to g ra n t a s y lu m to re f u g e e s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a ); IN S v . C a rd o z a -F o n e s e c a , 4 8 0 U .S . 4 2 1 , 4 2 8 n .5 (1 9 8 7 ). U n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1158( b) , an as y l um appl i cantbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng thats /he i s a r efuge e w i t hi n the m eani ng of 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . Fori m m i gr at i on purpos es , a r efuge e i s defi ned as o n e w h o is un ab le or u n w il li n g to return to h is or h er c o u n try“b ec au se o f p erse cu ti o n o r a w e ll-fo u n d e d f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f ra c e , relig io n , n a tio n a lity , m e m b e rsh ip in a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on . . . . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . T he sta tu to ryd e f

in iti o n o f re f u g e e sp e c if

ica llyp ro v id e s th a t a p e rso n f o rc e d to a b o rt a pr egnanc y“s hal l be dee m ed t o have be en per s ecut ed on ac countof a pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(B ). T h e iss u e o n a p p e a l is w h e th e r th e B IA ’s a f f irm a n c e o f

th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . G ao cont ends thatthe I J err ed by cons i der i ng t he for ens i cs r epor ts ubm i t t ed byD H S show i ng thatherhus band s ubm i t t ed fr audul entdocument s r egar di ng heral l eged a bor t i on dur i ng hi s ow n as y l um hear i ng. G ao a lso a rg u e s th a t h e r te stim o n yw a s c o n sis ten t w ith h e r a sy lu m a p p lica tio n a n d su f f icie n tly d e ta ile d to e s ta b lis h e lig ib ility f o r a s y lu m . T he B I A pr oper l yconcl uded thatthe I J di d noterri n cons i der i ng the for ens i cs r epor ts ubm i t t ed byD H S show i ng t hatM r . G ao s ubm i t t ed a f r audul entabor t i on cert i fi cat e dur i ng hi s as y l um hear i ng. A s the B I A not ed, the r epor thad pr obat i ve val ue, w as a d m itted w ith o u t objecti o n , an d G ao h ad an o p p o rtu n ityto reb u t th e re p o rt . F u rth er,6

the IJ d id n o t dir ec tl yrelyo n the re p o rtin d eterm ining G ao ’s cred ibil ityb u t, rathe r, cons i der ed the r epor ti n det erm i ni ng w hatw ei ghtt o gi ve otherunauthent i cat ed and uncorr obor at ed document at i on. M or eover , s ubs t ant i al evi dence , i ndepende ntof the for ens i cs r epor t , s uppor t s t he I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. T he B I A pr oper l yconcl uded thatG ao’ s t es t i m onyal one fa i l ed t o s us t ai n her bur den of pr oof forr el i ef f r om r emoval . T he t es t i m onyof the appl i cantal one maybe su f f icie n t to e sta b lish e lig ib ili tyf o r a sy lu m if

c re d ib le in lig h t o f

th e c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s in the a p p li ca n t’ s co u n tryo f n ati o n ali ty . M att er o f S -M -J-, 2 1 I. & N . D ec . 7 2 2 , 7 2 4 (B IA 19 97 ). In this case, ho w ever, al t ho ug h G ao tes t i fi ed, and as G ao em ph asi zes di d so cons i s t ent l yw i t h herappl i cat i on, t he I J not ed i t“appe ar s att i m es t o be byr ot e. ” A pp. at 10. T he I J al s o found a numberof pr obl ems w i t h G ao’ s t es t i m ony . A pp. at11. She fo u n d inco n sist en cies in G ao ’s t esti m o n yan d co m p are d the lim it ed d etail in G ao ’s t es t i m onyr egar di ng for ced a bor t i on and s t er i l i zat i on w i t h contr adi ct oryevi dence i n the C ount r yC ondi t i on R epor t s s ubm i t t ed byD H S w hi ch s t at ed thatther e w as no evi dence of fo rce d ab o rt ion o r pro p ertyco n fisca ti o n in the p rov ince in w h ich G ao reside d . F u rth er, G ao fa i l ed t o s uffi ci ent l yexpl ai n t he al l eged pr eval ence of the C hi nes e fa m i l ypl anni ng p o l i c yi n l i g h to f

t h e f a c tt h a tGa o h a s s e v e r a l s i b l i n g s r e ma i n i n g i n Ch i n a wh o h a v e t wo c h ild re n . A ddi t i onal l y , t he I J i dent i fi ed s peci fi c def i ci enci es i n t he document aryevi dence G a o su b m itt e d . T h e IJ n o ted th a t, ac c o rd in g to th e C o u n tryC o n d iti o n R e p o rts, d o c u m e n ts7

fr om C hi na w hi ch purpor tt o ver i fyper s onal hi s t oryar e s ubj ectt o w i des pr ead f abr i cat i on and fr aud. A pr evi ous D epart m entof St at e Pr ofi l e had s peci fi cal l yr efe r r ed t o Fuzbau ( G ao’ s pr ovi nce) as an ar ea i n w hi ch s uch fr aud fr equent l yoccur s . N ot i ng the pot ent i al fordocumentfr aud, t he I J pl ace d l i t t l e w ei ghton G ao’ s uncorr obor at ed and unauthent i cat ed document s . Fur t her , the I J s peci fi cal l ynot ed G ao’ s fai l ur e t o pr es entany w itn e ss e s to su p p o rt h e r c laim e v e n th o u g h se v e ra l o f h e r f a m ilym e m b e rs a re p re se n t in t he U ni t ed St at es , i ncl udi ng herhus band and he rs i s t er , w ho w er e both pr es enti n C hi na dur i ng t he t i m e i n ques t i on. She al s o not ed thatthe l ett erG ao pr es ent ed fr om hers i s t er w hi ch purpor t ed t o be fr om C hi na had no a t t ache d envel ope t o s how thati tw as and w as nots w or n. T h e IJ id e n tifie d se v e ra l sp e c if ic, c o g e n t re a so n s s u p p o rtin g h e r a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on i ncl udi ng G ao’ s i nabi l i t yt o expl ai n contr adi ct i ons betw een he rt es t i m ony and the C ount r yC ondi t i on R epor t s , heri nabi l i t yt o corr obor at e orauthent i cat e her s uppor t i ng document at i on, and heri nabi l i t yt o pr es entavai l abl e w i t nes s es . U nderthe defe r ent i al s t andar d forr evi ew i ng det erm i nat i ons of adve r s e cr edi bi l i t y , w e conc l ude that th e IJ ’s d e c is io n w a s re a s o n a b le a n d s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l r e c o rd e v id e n c e . I I I . C oncl usi on F or the reasons setforth, w e ho l d thatthe B IA ’s affirm ance o f t he ad verse cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on of the I J w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e w i l l denyt h e P e t i t i o n f o rRe v i e w.

_______________________