2009 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 11-24-2009 

# D ong 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 . 07-2787

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_2009

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 2009 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 " D on g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 214. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2141 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. 07- 2787

___________ RE N DE NG DON G, 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 77- 994- 021) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R os al i nd K . M al l oy

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

Sept ember9, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , N Y G A A R D and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: N ovember24, 2009

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerR en D eng D ong i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of C hi na w ho pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ s ( “B I A ”) deci s i on2

a f f i r mi n g a d e c i s i o n o f

t h e I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) d e n y i n g h i s a p p l i c a t i o n s f o ra s y l u m, w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , and prot ect i on un der the U nit ed N at i on s C on ven t i on A gainst T o r tu r e ( “ CA T ” ) . F o rt h e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yDo n g ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. D ong ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i t houti ns pect i on on N ovember1, 2001 and w as i m m edi at el ydet ai ned. H e w as i s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppearon N ovember8, 2001 t hat char ged hi m as bei ng r emovabl e under8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( 1) . D ong w as r el eas ed fr om det ent i on on bond on D ece m ber13, 2001. D ong t her eaf t erconce ded that h e wa s r e mo v a b l e b u t , o n De c e mb e r1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , f i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra s y l u m, w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T r el i ef a s s ert i ng thathe had be en per s ecut ed for o p p o s in g C h in a ’s f

a m ily p la n n in g p o lic y . A t his m erit s h ea ri n g , D o n g test ifi ed that o n O ctob er 1 , 2 0 0 1 , h e a n d h is fo u rm o n th -p re g n a n t g irlfr ien d , C h u iji n L in , w e re re f u se d a m a rria g e c e rtific a te a t th e ir vi l l age’ s comm i t t ee of

fi ce be caus e at18 y ear s ol d t heyw er e t oo y oung t o m arr yunder C hi nes e l aw . D ong ar gued w i t h t he off i ci al s , w ho for ced hi m outof the off i ce a nd t el ephoned the pol i ce, acc us i ng D ong of as s aul t i ng them. W hen the pol i ce a r r i ved and at t empt ed t o arr es tD ong, he es cape d w i t h t he hel p of vi l l ager s . H e i m m edi at el yw ent i nt o hi di ng w hi l e Li n l i ved w i t h hi s par ent s . D ong t es t i fi ed thatw hi l e he w as i n hi di ng, fam i l yplanni ng off

i ci al s sough tt o arr esthim and l efta fi ne n oti ce athis parent s’ ho use c h a rg in g h im w ith f

a ili n g to o b tain p e rm iss io n to b e c o m e p re g n a n t. H e tes tifie d th a t h is3

par ent s pai d t he fi ne. T w o w eeks aft erthe i nci dentw i t h t he vi l l age of fi ci al s , D ong w as s m uggl ed i nt o t he U ni t ed St at es . U pon hi s r el eas e fr om det ent i on, D ong cal l ed Li n, w ho t old hi m t hat s he h ad b een f orced t o h ave an abo rt i on . H e al so spok e w i t h h i s parent s, w ho t ol d hi m t hatt he fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ci al s s t i l l w ant ed t o arr es thi m . H e s t at ed that he w as fr i ght ened t o r etur n t o C hi na bec aus e he “ t hi nks [he] w i l l have bi g t r oubl e, b e c a u s e th e ya c c u s e d [ h im ] o f b e a tin g u p g o v e rn m e n t o f f ic ia ls .” S ub st anti al problem s w i t h D on g’s t est i m on y , affidavi t , and do cum entat i on arose on cross -exam i nati on . H e t est i fi ed thathe an d L i n w ere m arr i ed in a tradi t i on al C hinese cer emony , butt hathe di d notm ent i on thi s i n hi s aff i davi tbeca us e he ha d no pr oof of the m a rria g e a n d b e c a u se th e m a rria g e w a s n o t re c o g n ize d b yth e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t. A ddi t i onal l y , he s ubm i t t ed an a bor t i on cert i fi cat e thatl i s t ed Li n’ s age a s 22 al t hough t he abor t i on os t ens i bl yoccurr ed tw o w eeks aft ertheyhad appl i ed fora mar r i age l i cens e, w h e n th e yw e re b o th 1 8 y e a rs o ld . D o n g s u g g e s te d th a t th is w a s a c le ri c a l m is ta k e . Fur ther , D ong had t es t i fi ed on di r ectexami nat i on thathe and Li n appl i ed fora mar r i age cert i fi cat e bec aus e s he w as pr egnant , y ethi s aff i davi ts t at es thattheyw ant ed t o get m arr i ed s i m pl ybecaus e theyw er e i n l ove, and thathe di d notl earn of Li n’ s pr egnanc y and abort i on unt i l aft erhe arr i ved i n t he U ni t ed St at es . A s t o t he i nci dentw i t h t he governm entoffi ci al s , he t es t i fi ed on cr os s - exami nat i on thatthe off i ci al s pus hed and dr agged hi m outof the off i ce a ft erhe r efus ed t o l eave . W hen theyr eac hed the s t r eet , t he offi ci al s began be at i ng hi m and he s t ruck bac k. A s a r es ul t , the off i ci al char ges l odged4

a g a in s t h im w e re f

o r “ b e a tin g f

a m ily p la n n in g o f

f ic ia ls .” T he I J deni ed D ong’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um on t he mer i t s and bec aus e i tw as u n tim e ly . S h e m a d e a n a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n , an d c o n c lu d e d th a t D o n g d id notm eett he s t andar d forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval orC A T r el i ef. T he I J expl ai ned that D ong “abs ol ut el yfai l ed t o es t abl i s h thathe w as per s ecut ed on ac countof vi ol at i ng the fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy ” bec aus e “he di d notes t abl i s h t hathe has a w i fe, thats he underw entan abort i on, ort hats he w as pr egnant . ” The I J fur t hers t at ed thatbas ed on D ong’ s ow n t es t i m ony , hi s behavi oratthe fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ce w oul d m ake hi m the su b jec t o f leg iti m a te p ro se c u tio n ra th e r th a n p e rse c u tio n . S h e th e n h e ld th a t h is c laim w a s f ra u d u le n t, w a rr a n tin g a f in d in g th a t h is a s y lu m a p p lic a tio n w a s f ri v o lo u s . T he B I A aff

i r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of r el i ef, det erm i ni ng thatthe I J offe r ed “s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons forheradver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. ” O n appea l , D ong ar gued for the fi r s tt i m e thatL i n’ s “s t er i l i zat i on” w as s uffi ci entt o demonstr at e thathe had s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on. T he B I A r ej ect ed thi s cl ai m forl ack of evi dence and bec aus e i tw as t he fi r s tt i m e thathe had r ai s ed thi s i s s ue. T he B I A vaca t ed the I J ’ s det erm i nat i on that D on g’s as y l um app l i cat i on w as fr i vo l ou s. T hr ough couns el , D ong now pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof re m o v a l. II T he governm entcorr ect l yar gues thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the dec i s i onB ec au se D o n g ap p li ed fo r reli ef b ef o re M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , the R E A L ID A ct’s 1 sta n d a rd g o v e rn in g re v iew o f a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s is n o t ap p lica b le to th is cas e. See K ai t a, 522 F. 3d at296.

F u rth er, w e n o te th at t o the e x tent D o n g ’s claim s o f p ast p erse cu ti o n are 2 pr edi cat ed on hi s r el at i ons hi p t o L i n, hi s cr edi bi l i t yand hi s m ar i t al s t atus ar e i r r el evant , as w e re c e n tlyh e ld th a t th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t d o e s n o t ex ten d a u to m a tic refugee st atus t o u nm arr i ed p artners orsp o u se s o f in d iv id u a ls w h o h a v e b e e n f o rc ib ly s ubj ect ed t o fami l ypl anni ng m eas ur es . See Li n- Z heng v. A t t ’ yG en. , 557 F. 3d 147, 156 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 5 that D on g’s as y l um app l i cat i on w as unti m el y . 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(a) (3) ; see al so S u k w a n tp u tr a v . G o n z a le s , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 3 -3 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e d o , h o w e v e r, r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he deni al of w i t hhol di ng of r emoval and C A T r el i ef. See T arr aw al l yv. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 180, 185- 86 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e r evi ew thes e dec i s i ons un der the sub st anti al evidence st and ard and w i l l up ho l d the B IA ’s determ i nati on s “unles s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” Zubeda v. A s h c ro f t, 3 3 3 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. See K ai t a v. 1 A tt ’yG en . , 5 2 2 F . 3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (ex p lai n ing the p re-R E A L ID A ct st an d ard o f re v iew ). D o n g ’s h e a rin g w a s m a rre d b yc o n tra d icto ryin f o rm a tio n re g a rd in g h is m ar i t al s t atus , t he ci r cumst ance s of hi s al t er cat i on w i t h fami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s , w hether L in w a s f

o rc e d to h a v e a n a b o rt io n , a n d th e re a s o n h e w a s b e in g s o u g h t b yth e a u th o ri tie s . T h e B IA ap p rop ri atelyfo u n d that thes e d iscrep an cies “ su p p o rtthe Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s a d v e rs e c re d ib ility f

in d in g .” 26

D ong m ayr i ght ful l yfea rpr os ecut i on foral l egedl ybeat i ng vi l l age of fi ci al s , and fea rof pr os ecut i on m aycons t i tut e gr ounds forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval i f i ti s m ot i vat ed byone of the enumer at ed fa ct or s , s uch as pol i t i cal opi ni on, “and i f the puni s hm entunder the l aw i s s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. ” Shar darv. A s hcr oft , 382 F. 3d 318, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . H ow ever , as i n Shar dar , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the concl us i on t hatD ong i s notbei ng pr os ecut ed due t o hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on; r ather , the pol i ce a r e att empt i ng t o pr os ecut e hi m forfi ght i ng w i t h t ow n offi ci al s beca us e he a r gued w i th them aft ert heyw oul d notgi ve hi m a mar r i age c ert i fi cat e and he r efus ed t o l eave t he offi ce. See i d. at324. M or eover , bei ng dr agged a nd/ orpus hed outof the fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ce a nd s ubs equent l ybeat en up byoffi ci al s , al t hough tr oubl i ng, does notr i s e t o t he le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n . S e e id . Fi nal l y , t her e i s no evi dence thatD ong w oul d m or e l i kel ythan notbe t or tur ed i f he is re m o v e d to C h in a s o a s to e n title h im to C A T re lie f. S e e 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )( 2 ). F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we d e n yDo n g ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.