FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A U G U ST 31, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10623 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ B I A N o. A 98- 542- 561 Y O N G Z H E N G C H E N , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 31, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: Y ongz he ng C he n, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons thi s c our tf or2

r e vi e w of

the or de rof

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i rm i ng the I m m ig r a tio n J u d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) o r d e rf in d in g h im r e m o v ab le a n d d e n y in g h is appl i c a t i ons f

ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l unde rthe I m m i gr a t i on a nd N a t i ona l i ty A c t( “ I N A ” ) . F orthe r e a s ons tha tf ol l ow , w e de ny the pe t i t i on. I . B AC KG RO UN D C he n e nt e r e d the U ni t e d S t a t e s i n J a nua ry 2004 w i thoutbe i ng pe rm i tt e d or p a r o le d . I n A u g u s t 2 0 0 4 , th e I N S is s u e d h im an o tic e to ap p e a r , c h a r g in g h im w ith re m ov abi l i ty und erIN A § 2 12 (a )( 6)(A )( i ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (6)( A )( i ). C hen then appl i e d f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C o n v en t i o n A g ai n stT o rtu re (“C A T ”), al l eg i n g th ath e w as p ersecu t ed b y C h i n ese autho ri t i es because of hi s pol i t i ca l op i ni on . A thi s r em ov al hear i ng , C hen t es t i fi ed a s f o llo w s : C h e n w a s ap ilo t f

o ratr a n s p o r te rs h ip th a t c a rr ie d c o n s tru c tio n m a te r ia ls w i thi n C hi na. In N ov em ber 200 3, he used the shi p t o tra nspo rtse vera l B i bl es for a C hr i s t i a n c hur c h. A l though C he n w a s aB uddhi s ta nd ha d no i nvol ve m e ntw i th the church or C hri st i ani ty, he tra nspo rt ed the B i bl es as a f avor for a f

ri end. L at erthat da y , C he n w a s a rr e s t e d by C hi ne s e a uthor i t i e s f ori l l e ga l l y tr a ns por t i ng r e l i gi ous m a te r ia ls f

o ra n u n d e r g r o u n d c h u r c h . H e w a s d e ta in e d f o rs e v e n d a y s a n d a s k e d to p a y af in e . O n h is f

ir s t d a y in c u s to d y , th e p o lic e b e a t h im w ith ar o d . A f te rh is w if e p a id th e f

in e , C h e n w a s r e le a s e d a n d to ld th a t h e h a d to r e tu rn to c o u r t to3

cont i nu e w i th h i s l egal proceedi ng s. R ather than return t o cou rt , ho w ever , C hen f l e d C hi naa nd c a m e t o the U . S . H e s t a t e d tha the f e a r e d r e turni ng t o C hi na be c a us e the C hi ne s e G ove rnm e nt“ w oul d s e nt e nc e ” hi m be c aus e he “ l e f tthe coun tryi l l egal l y. ” I n s u p p o r t o f

h is ap p lic a tio n , C h e n s u b m itte d ac o p y o f ad e te n tio n w a rr a n t, w hi c h s t a t e d tha tC he n ha d be e n a rr e s t e d f or“ i l l e ga l l y tr a ns por t i ng r e l i gi ous l i t er ature f

or un dergroun d chu rc hes. ” C hen al so subm i tt ed a l ett erfr om hi s w i fe , st at i ng thatthe fa m i l y ( i ncl ud i ng C hen’ s par ent s a nd hi s w i fe ’ s par ent s) had b ee n s ubj e c t e d t o w e e kl y i nt e rr oga t i ons , f i ne s , thr e a t s , di s c r i m i na t i on, a nd ha r a s s m e nt s in c e C h e n ’s e s c ap e f

r o m C h in a . T h e I J d e n ie d r e lie f

, c o n c lu d in g th a t C h e n h a d f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t h is a rr e s t a n d a lle g e d b e a tin g w e r e o n a c c o u n t o f as ta tu to r ily e n u m e r a te d g r o u n d . R ather, the IJfoun d thatC hen w as t ar get ed “ because of hi s part i ci pat i on i n i l l egal a c tiv itie s .” T h e I J a ls o c o n c lu d e d th a t th e a lle g e d b e a tin g d o e s n o t c o n s titu te pe r s e c ut i on; C he n l a c ke d aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof a n e num e r a t e d gr ound; a nd C he n f a i l e d t o s how tha tthe r e w a s al i ke l i hood or p lau s ib ility th a t h e w o u ld b e to r tu r e d if h e r e tu rn e d to C h in a . C he n appe a l e d t o the B I A , w hi c h a f f i rm e d. N ot i ng tha tthe I J ha d notm a de an adverse cr edi bi l i ty det erm i nat i on , the B IA det erm i ned thatthere w er e i ncon si st enci es betw ee n C hen’ s app l i ca t i on and h i s t es t i m on y a tthe re m ov al4

h e a r in g . T h e B I A a ls o c o n c lu d e d th a t C h e n w a s n o t a rr e s te d b e c au s e o f h is i m pu t ed re l i gi on bu tbecause he vi ol at ed C hi nese l aw ; the det ent i on and al l eged beat i ng di d n otri se t o the l evelof pers ec ut i on ; and C hen fai l ed t o d em on stra t e a w e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. C h e n n o w p e titio n s th is c o u r t f o rr e v ie w . I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r evi ew on l y the B IA ’ s dec i si on exce ptt o the ext entthatthe B IA e xpr e s s l y a dopt s the I J ’ s de c i s i on. A l N a jj a rv. A s hc r of

t , 257 F . 3d 1262, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . T o the e xt e nttha tthe de c i s i on i s ba s e d on al e ga l de t e rm i na t i on, w e r e vi e w the de c i s i on de novo. R ui z v. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 440 F . 3d 1247, 1254 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). F ac tual det erm i nat i on s a re re vi ew ed un der the subst ant i al e vi de nc e t e s t , a nd thi s c our t“ m us ta f f i rm the B I A ’ s de c i s i on i f i ti s s uppor t e d by reaso n ab l e, su b st an t i al , an d p ro b at i v e ev i d en ce o n th e reco rd co n si d ered as a w hol e . ” A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1283- 84 ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed). A dd i t i on al l y, “ [u] nd erthe subst ant i al evi dence t es t , w e r evi ew the re cord e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e a g e n c y ’s d e c is io n a n d d r a w a ll re as o n ab le in fe re n ce s in fa v o r o f th at d ec isio n .” R u iz, 4 4 0 F .3 d at 1 2 5 5 . T h u s, “a fi nd i ng of fa ctw i l l be re vers ed on l y w hen the re cord com pel s are vers al ; the m er e factth atth e reco rd m ay su p p o rta co n trary co n cl u si o n i s n o ten o u g h t o j u st i fy a r e v e r s a l o f

th e a d m in is tr a tiv e f

in d in g s .” I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) .5 A . A s yl um T he A tt orne y G e ne r a l ha s di s c r e t i on t o gr a nta s y l um i f a n a l i e n m e e t s the I N A ’ s de f

i ni t i on of a“ r e f uge e . ” I N A § 208( b) ( 1) , 8 U . S . C . § 1158( b) ( 1) . T he IN A d efi n es a refu g ee as a n y p e r s o n w h o is o u ts id e a n y c o u n try o f s u c h p e r s o n ’s n a tio n a lity . . . a nd w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r e turn t o, a nd i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o a va i l hi m s e l f

orhe r s e l f

of the pr ot e c t i on of

, tha tc ountry be c aus e of pers ec ut i on or a w el l -f

ou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof ra ce , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa r t i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or pol i t i c a l opi ni on. 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) ( A ) . T he a s y l um appl i c a ntbe a r s the bur de n of pr ovi ng r e f uge e s t a tus . A l N a

jj a r , 257 F . 3d a t1284. T o m e e tthi s bur de n, the appl i c a nt m us te s t abl i s h, w i th s pe c i f i c a nd c r e di bl e e vi de nc e , ( 1) pa s tpe r s e c ut i on on a c c ount o f as ta tu to r ily lis te d f

a c to r , or(2) a“ w el l -f

ou nd ed fe ar ” thatthe st atut ori l y l i st ed f a c t orw i l l c aus e f

utur e pe r s e c ut i on. 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) , ( b) ; A l N a jj a r , 257 F . 3d at12 87 . “ [O ] nl y i n a ra re ca se do es the re cord com pel the concl usi on thatan appl i c a ntf

ora s y l um ha s s uf

f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on orha s aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof future pers ec ut i on . ” S i l va v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 44 8 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 39 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) . I n d e e d , “p e r s e c u tio n is a n e x tr e m e c o n c e p t.” S e p u lv e d av . U .S . A tt’y G e n ., 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . “N o t a ll e xc e pt i ona l tr e a tm e nti s pe r s e c ut i on. ” G onz a l e z v. R e no, 212 F . 3d 1338, 1355 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ). A n d th e ap p l i can tm u stsh o w th atth e p ersecu t i o n w as, “ atl east6

i n pa r t , m ot i va t e d by apr ot e c t e d gr ound. ” R i ve r av. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 487 F . 3d 81 5, 82 1 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ). If the as yl um appl i ca ntes t abl i shes pastpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a st atut ori l y prot ec t ed grou nd , he i s pre sum ed t o h ave aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pe r s e c ut i on, unl e s s the gove rnm e ntc a n r e butthe pr e s um pt i on. D - M uhum e d v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en . , 3 8 8 F . 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). If h e can n o tsh o w p ast pe r s e c ut i on, the n he m us tde m ons tr a t e aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on thati s both subj ec t i vel y genui ne and o bj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e. R ui z, 44 0 F . 3d at 1 2 5 7 . T h e s u b

je c tiv e c o m p o n e n t c a n b e e s tab lis h e d “b y th e ap p lic a n t’s c r e d ib le t e s t i m ony tha the ors he ge nui ne l y f e a r s pe r s e c ut i on, ” w hi l e the obj e c t i ve c om pone nt“ c a n be f

ul f i l l e d e i the rby e s t abl i s hi ng pa s tpe r s e c ut i on ortha the ors he h a s ag o o d r e a s o n to f

e a rf u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n .” I d . U po n car ef

ul re vi ew of the re cord and the part i es ’ bri ef s, w e c on cl ud e that the re cord do es no tes t abl i sh thatC hen suffe re d p as tpers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a p ro tected g ro u n d . R ath er , th e r ec o rd su p p o rts th e B IA ’s co n clu sio n th at C h en ’s a rr e s t , de t e nt i on, a nd a l l e ge d be a t i ng w e r e on a c c ountof hi s tr a ns por t i ng r e l i gi ous lite r a tu r e o n h is s h ip in ap p a r e n t v io la tio n o f C h in e s e la w , n o t o n a c c o u n t o f h is po l i t i ca l op i ni on or any other s t atut ori l y prot ec t ed grou nd . M oreover, i ti s notcl ea r th a t th e s e in c id e n ts r o s e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n g iv e n th a t C h e n w a s o n ly b e a te n o n th e f

ir s t d a y o f

th e s e v e n - d a y d e te n tio n , a n d h e w a s r e le a s e d a f te rh isIn his appellate brief, Chen raises the issue of relief under theUnited Nations 1 Conventi on

Ag ains t T or

ture(“ CA T” ). B ut h efaile d toc halleng etheIJ’s denial of CA T re lie f in his appeal to the BIA. He ha s theref ore f ailed to exhaust his available administrative remedies 7 w i f e pa i d af i ne . S e e S e pul ve da , 401 F . 3d a t1231. W e a l s o c onc l ude tha tC he n ha s notde m ons tr a t e d aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f a n e n u m e r a te d g r o u n d th a t is b o th s u b je c tiv e ly genu i ne and o bj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e. S ee R ui z, 44 0 F . 3d at12 57 . C hen t es t i fi ed tha the f l e d C hi nabe c aus e he f

e a r e d he w oul d be i m pr i s one d f orl e a vi ng C hi na i l l e ga l l y— notbe c aus e he f e a r e d pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof hi s pol i t i c a l opi ni on, i m put e d r e l i gi on, ora ny othe rs t a tut or i l y pr ot e c t e d gr ound. A nd nothi ng i n the r e c or d e s t abl i s he s tha tC he n ha s a n obj e c t i ve l yr e a s onabl e ba s i s t o f e a rtha the w o u ldb e p er se cu ted in C h in a o n ac co u n t o f a p ro tected g ro u n d . A lth o u g h C h en ’s w i f e ( vi al e tt e r ) a s s e r t e d tha tthe f a m i l y ha d be e n f

i ne d, ha r a s s e d, thr e a t e ne d, a nd di sc ri m i nat ed agai nstsi nce C hen’ s departure f rom C hi na, there i s no evi dence that a n y o f th e s e in c id e n ts w e r e o n a c c o u n t o f as ta tu to r ily p r o te c te d g r o u n d . B ecau se th e reco rd d o es n o tco m p el th e co n cl u si o n th atC h en su ffered p ast pers ec ut i on or thathe has aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future pers ec ut i on on ac coun tof a s ta tu to r ily p r o te c te d g r o u n d , w e a f f irm th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f

a s y lu m . B . W i t h h ol d i n g R e m oval B ec ause C hen canno tes t abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um re l i ef

, he there fore c a nnotm e e tthe m or e s tr i nge ntbur de n f orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l . S e e F or gue v.

1reg ardingthis iss ue, and w e lack jurisdiction to consider it. Fer nandez-B ernal v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 257 F .3d 1304, 1317 n.13 (11th Cir. 2001). 8 U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 88 n. 4 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( st at i ng thatw here a pe t i t i one rf

a i l s t o e s t abl i s h hi s a s y l um c l a i m on the m e r i t s , hi s c l a i m f or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al nece ss ar i l y f ai l s) . I I I . CONCL US I ON F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e DE NY th e p e titio n .