FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 45 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 98 -9 81 -8 24 JI N FU W ENG, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 4, 2 01 1) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ji n F u Weng , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof t he Peo pl e’s Rep ub li c o f Ch in a,

pe ti ti on s t hi s C ou rt f

orrev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’ (“ BIA”) de ci si on affi rm in g t he Im m ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) d en ia l o f hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andrel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Aga in stTortur e (“ CAT”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 11 58 (a), 1 23 1( b) (3 ), 8 C .F.R. § 2 08 .16 (c), an d d en y in g h is m ot io n fo r a rem an d b as edon ne w evi de nc e, 8 C .F.R. § 1 00 3.2 (c). W en g c on te nd s t ha t the BIA fai le d t o a de qu at el y co ns id er wh ethe r he ha d awell
fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n h is op po si ti onto Ch in a’s co erci ve fam il y pl an ni ng po li cy . In ad di ti on , W en g a rg ue s t ha t the BIA ab us edit s di sc ret io n b y

de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r a rem an d b as edon ne w evi de nc e o f hi s in vo lv em en t i n F al un Gon g. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we den y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. I. The Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y is su edW en g aNot ic e to App ear, al le gi ng th athe was ana ti ve an d c it iz enof C hi nawho en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s witho utbe in g a dm it te d o r pa ro le d b y animm ig rat io n o ffi cer. Th e n ot ic e ch arg ed th atW en g was rem ov ab le un de r INA § 2 12 (a)( 6) (A)(i ), 8 U.S.C. § 1 18 2( a)(6 )(A)(i ), as anali enpre se ntin th e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t b ei ng adm it te d orpa ro le d. Weng adm it te d t he all eg at io ns in th e Not ic e to App ear a ndco nc ed ed 2rem ov ab il it y . He app li edforasylu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f.

At an asylu m

he ari ng , W en g t es ti fie d t ha t h e was bo rninCh an gl e Ci ty, Fu jian Pro vi nc e, Ch in a. He was m arri ed , andhe an d h is wife ha d t wo d au gh te rs . On Se pt em

be r 16 , 19 99 , bi rth co nt ro l o ffi cers cam e to th e fam il y ’s ho us e an d t ol d W en g t ha t h is wife wou ldha ve to be st eri li zedbe cau se th e co up le was n otall owe d to ha ve an y

m or e ch il dr en . W en g a rg ue d wi th th e o ffi cers an d t rie d t o s to p t he m fro m tak in g h is wife , bu t the off ic ers to okhi s wi fe away andfor cedhe r to un de rg o a st eri li zat io n p ro cedur e. W en g t es ti fie d t ha t h e was an gry an d unh ap py ov er wh atha d h ap pe ne d t o hi s wi fe. He to ldhi s n ei gh bo r th atth e b irt h c on tro l o ffi cers di d n otres pe cthu m an rig ht s an d wer e n othu m anbe in gs . He als o d ecl aredth athe want edto lea ve Ch in a an d g o t o the Uni te d S ta te s. Whenth e b irt h c on tro l o ffi cers he ardab ou t Weng ’s cri ti ci sm s, the y

cam e to hi s h ou se an d t ol d h im th atth ey wou ldst eri li ze h im

if h e co nt in ue d t o s pe akou t ag ai ns t the m . After t wo u ns uc ces sf ul att em pt s t o l eav e Ch in a, W en g fi na ll y

was abl e to co m e to th e Uni te d S ta te s i n 2 00 5. He fe aredth at he wou ldbe fin ed , im

pr is on ed , andst eri li zedif h e returne d t o C hi na . The reco rdin cl ud eda co py of th e U.S. Sta te Depa rtment’s 2 00 8 C ou nt ry Rep ort o n Hu m anRig ht s Pr act ic es in Ch in a. Acco rd in g t o the 20 08 Co un try Rep ort, the Ch in es e g ov ern m en t s om et im es us edco erci ve m eas ur es to en fo rce i ts 3po pu la ti on co nt ro l p ol ic y . Paren ts with two ch il dr enoft enwere p res su redto

un de rg o s te ril iz at io n. Th e rep ort al so ex pl ai ne d t ha t the Ch in es e g ov ern m en t h ad co nt in ue d acrac kd own ag ai ns t the Fal unGon g m ov em en t. Acco rd in g t o F al un Gon g s ou rces , m or e th an10 0,0 00 m em be rs ha d b een sen te nc edto reeduc at io n th ro ug h l ab orcam

ps , andth ou sa nd s d ie d fr om to rtu re wh il e in cu st od y . Mos t pr act it io ne rs were p un is he d a dm in is tra ti ve ly, bu t “ co re l ead ers ” o f th e Fal un Gon g were s in gl edou t fo r pa rti cu la rly hars h t reat m en t. Eve n p ract it io ne rs who di d n ot en ga ge in publ ic de m on st rat io ns were s om et im es sen t t o l ab orcam ps or f or cedto at te ndan ti -Fal unGon g c la ss es . The IJ i ss ue d a n o ral de ci si on de nyin g Weng ’s app li cat io ns forasylu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andCAT rel ie f. Fir st , th e IJ co nc lu de d t ha t Weng ’s st ory la ck edcred ib il it y . Mor eo ve r, ev enass um in g t ha t Weng ’s tes ti m on y was c red ib le , th e IJ co nc lu de d t ha t h e h adno t m etth e st an da rdforasylu m . The IJ ex pl ai ne d th atth e fam il y

pl an ni ng off

ic ia ls ’ th reat s t o s te ril iz e Weng di d n otris e to th e le ve l of pa stpe rs ecu ti on . In ad di ti on , th e IJ de te rm in edth atW en g d idno t h av e a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . The IJ ob se rv edth at , aft er Weng was th reat en edwith s te ril iz at io n, h e co nt in ue d t o l iv e inCh in a fo r fi ve y ears witho ut in ci de nt , andth ere was no ev id en ce tha t the off ic ia ls ha d b een sea rch in g fo r hi m si nc e h is de pa rtu re fro m

Ch in a. Acco rd in gl y , th e IJ de ni edW en g’s ap pl ic at io n fo r

4as y lu m . Becau se W en g h adfai le d t o m eetth e st an da rdforasylu m , th e IJ

co nc lu de d t ha t h e n eces sa ril y was u nabl e to m eetth e h ig he r st an da rdfor withh ol di ng of r em ov al . Fin al ly, th e IJ de ni edW en g’s cl ai m forCAT rel ie f be cau se he ha d n otsh own th athe wou ldbe to rtu redby, or with t he acqui es cen ce of , a Ch in es e g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al . W en g app eal edth e IJ ’s dec is io n t o the BIA. He als o fi le d am ot io n t o rem an d h is cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs du e to th e fac t tha t h e rec en tl y ha d b eg un to pra ct ic e Fal un Gon g. In a supp orti ng affi da vi t, Weng ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e h ad be ensu ffer in g fr om

de pr es si onfol lo win g t he de ni al of h is asylu m ap pl ic at io n a nd th e d eat h o f hi s m othe r. On the advi ce o f hi s wi fe, h e st art edpra ct ic in g F al un Gon g, an d h e d is co ve redth atth e ex erci se s h ada go odeffe cton hi s m en ta l h eal th . InMarc h 2 01 0, Weng wentto th e “ Glo ba l Se rv ic e Cen te r fo r Qui tt in g C hi ne se Co m m un is t Pa rty,” where he de no un cedth e Co m m un is t Pa rty, dis as so ci at ed hi m se lf f ro m th e Co m m un is t Yo ut h Gro up , andform al ly j oi ne d the Fal un Gon g m ov em en t. Weng fear edth athe wou ldbe im pr is on edif h e returne d t o C hi na be cau se th e Ch in es e g ov ern m en t co ns id eredFal un Gon g t o b e an“ ev il cu lt .” W en g p res en te d aser ie s o f do cu m en ts in supp ort o f hi s m ot io n fo r a rem an d. Fi rs t, h e subm it te d aps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti on , whi ch in di cat edth athe ha d be endi ag no se d wi th m ajorde pr es si ve di so rd er an d p sycho si s. Weng als o 5pr ov id eda le tt er fro m hi s wi fe i n wh ic h s he advi se d h im to be gi n p ract ic in g F al un Gon g. In ad di ti on , he p res en te d acert ifi cat e fro m th e Glo ba l Se rv ic e Cen te r fo r Qui tt in g C hi ne se Co m

m un is t Pa rty, whic h s ta te d t ha t Weng “ ha s re al iz edth e ev il na tu re o f th e Ch in es e Co m m un is t Party andreg is te redforqu it ti ng th e Ch in es e Co m m un is t Pa rty and/o r it s af

fil ia te d o rg an iz at io ns .” Fin al ly, W en g s ub m it te d a se rie s o f ph ot og rap hs ap pa ren tl y sh owi ng hi m

at t he Glo ba l Se rv ic e Cen te r. The BIA d is m is se d Weng ’s app eal . The BI A di d n otad op t the IJ’s adve rs e cred ib il it y

fin di ng , bu t d idag ree wi th th e IJ ’s alt ern at iv e co nc lu si on th atW en g ha d n otm ethi s b ur de n o f pr oo f fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , or C AT rel ie f. Fir st , th e BIA co nc lu de d t ha t Weng ha d n otex pe rie nc edpa stpe rs ecu ti on in Ch in a. The B IA fo un d t ha t Weng ’s cri ti ci sm s o f th e fam il y pl an ni ng off

ic ia ls di d no t am ou ntto “ ot he r res is ta nc e” t o C hi na ’s fam il y pl an ni ng po li cy , andco nc lu de d th atth e fam il y

pl an ni ng off

ic ia ls ’ th reat s t o s te ril iz e Weng di d n otris e to th e le ve l of pe rs ecu ti on . Nex t, the BIA d et erm in edth atW en g d idno t h av e a wel l-f ou nd edfearof fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . The BI A no te d t ha t Weng ap pa ren tl y ha d “ worke d un ev en tfu ll y

as afis he rm anun ti l h e le ft C hi na .” The B IA co nc lu de d t ha t Weng ha d n otest ab li sh edanob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e p os si bi li ty tha t h e wou ldbe st eri li zedor o th erwi se ha rm edba se d o n h is earl ie r res is ta nc e to th e fam il y 6pl an ni ng pro gr am . There fo re, the BIA affi rm edth e d en ia l o f W en g’s as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n. Be cau se W en g d idno t s at is fy th e st an da rdforasylu m , th e BIA fu rth er co nc lu de d, h e was un ab le to m eetth e h ig he r st an dardforwithh ol di ng of rem ov al . In ad di ti on , th e BIA d et erm in edth atW en g was no t en ti tl edto CAT rel ie f be cau se he ha d n otsh own th atitwas m or e li ke ly tha n n otth athe wou ldbe to rtu redby, orwith t he acqui es cen ce o f, a g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al . The BIA al so de ni edW en g’s m ot io n fo r a rem an d. Th e BIA n ot edth at m ere i nv ol ve m en t i n t he Fal un Gon g m ov em en t d oe s n ot , inan d o f it se lf, e nt it le a pe rs on to asylu m

in th e Uni te d S ta te s. Ci ti ng th e 2 00 8 C ou nt ry Rep ort, the BIA no te d t ha t the Ch in es e g ov ern m en t re se rv edth e h ars he stpu ni sh m en ts forFal un Gon g l ead ers , and po in te d o utth atth ere was no ev id en ce tha t Weng he lda le ad ers hi p ro le in th e Fal un Gon g m ov em en t. The BIA fu rth er o bs erv edth atth ere was no ev id en ce tha t the Ch in es e g ov ern m en t was ev enaware o f W en g’s “ li m it ed an d v ery rece nt ” p ract ic e o f Fal un Gon g i n t he Uni te d S ta te s. Be cau se W en g h ad no t m ad e a pr ima fa ci e sh owi ng th athe wou ldbe en ti tl edto asylu m ba se d o n h is pr act ic e o f Fal unGon g, the BIA co nc lu de d t ha t n o re m an d was warran te d. II. Whe n t he BIA is su es a de ci si on , we rev ie w on ly tha t d eci si on , exc ep t t o t he ex te ntth atitad op ts th e IJ ’s op in io n o r reas on in g. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d 712 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Here, the BIA is su edit s o wn d eci si on witho ut

ad op ti ng th e IJ ’s op in io n o r rea so ni ng , so we rev ie w on ly the BIA’s de ci si on . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s fac tu al fin di ng s t o d et erm in e whe th er the y are s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Ade fe mi v. As hc ro

ft , 38 6 F .3d10 22 , 10 26 -2 7 (1 1t h C ir. 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). “ [W] e v ie w th e rec or d e vi de nc e inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t ha t d eci si on .” Id
. at 1 02 7. We m ay

rev ers e th e BIA’s fac tu al fin di ng s o nl y whenth e rec or d co m pe ls a rev ers al . Id

. The Att orne y

Gene ral ha s d is cret io n t o g ran t as y lu m to an y ali enwho is de te rm in edto be a refu ge e. INA § 2 08 (b )(1 ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 ); 8 C.F.R. § 2 08 .13 (a). Anap pl ic an t qua li fie s as a refu ge e if he ha s s uf

fere d p as t pe rs ecu ti on , or h as a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on , inhi s co un try of or ig in . 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) ; Kaze mza de h v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 57 7 F .3d13 41 , 13 51 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) . The b ur de n o f pr oo f is onth e ap pl ic an t t o e st ab li sh th athe is a refu ge e. INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (i) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(B) (i) ; Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F.3 d a t 1 35 1. To es tabl is h a sylum

ba se d o n p as t p ers ecu ti on , th e ap pl ic an t m us t s ho w th at he was p ers ecu te d o n a cco un t o f a p ro te ct edgro un d. 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) (1 ); Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 1. We hav e ex pl ai ne d t ha t “pe rs ecu ti on is an 8ex tre m e co nc ep t, re qu iri ng m or e th ana few i so la te d i nc id en ts of v erb al

ha ras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n, an d t ha t m ere h aras sm en t d oe s n otam ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on .” Se

pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 40 1 F .3d12 26 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on s an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) (co nc lu di ng th atm en aci ng ph on e cal ls an d th reat s d idno t ri se to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on ). In t he ab se nc e o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on , anap pl ic an t m ay

est ab li sh a well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on by sho win g t ha t th ere i s a r eas on ab le po ss ib il ity th athe wil l b e p ers ecu te d i f he is returne d t o h is co un try of o rig in . 8 C.F.R. 2 08 .13 (b )(2 ); Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 2. Th e ap pl ic an t m

us t s ho w th athi s fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti onis bo th “ subjec ti ve ly genui ne an d ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e.” Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 9. Co ng res s h as pro vi de d t ha t a p ers onwho ha s b een for cedto ab ort a p reg na nc y or t o u nd erg o in vo lu nt ary st eri li zat io n, o r who ha s b een pe rs ecu te d fo r fai lu re o r refu sa l t o u nd erg o s uc h apro cedur e o r fo r ot he r res is ta nc e to a co erci ve po pu la ti onco nt ro l p ro gr am , sh al l b e d eem edto have be en pe rs ecu te d o n a cco un t o f po li ti cal op in io n, an d ape rs on who ha s a well fou nd edfearth athe or s he wil l b e fo rcedto un de rg o s uc h a pr oc edur e o r subjec t t o p ers ecu ti on for su chfai lu re, ref

us al , or res is ta nc e sh al l b e d eem edto ha ve a well fou nd edfearof p ers ecu ti on on acco un t o f po li ti cal op in io n. INA § 1 01 (a)( 42 ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 ). An i nd iv idua l wh os e sp ou se ha s b een fo rcedto un de rg o a n abo rti on or s te ril iz at io n p ro cedur e is no t au to m at ic al ly en ti tl edto refu ge e st atus . Y u v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 56 8 F .3d13 28 , 13 32 -3 3 (1 1t h C ir.

920 09 ); Mat te r o f J- S- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 52 0, 5 23 -2 4 (A.G. 2 00 8) . Rath er, the ap pl ic an t m

us t s ho w th athe or s he pe rs on al ly w as for cedto un de rg o a n abo rti on orst eri li zat io n p ro cedur e, ha s a we ll -fo un de d fe ar o f be in g fo rcedto do so in th e fu tu re, o r ha s a we ll -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on ba se d o n “ ot he r res is ta nc e” t o a po pu la ti on co nt ro l p ro gr am . Y u , 56 8 F .3dat 1 33 3. To qu al ify fo r withh ol di ng of rem ov al , an ap pl ic an t m us t es tabl is h th at hi s li fe or free do m wou ld be th reat en ed in hi s c ou nt ry of or ig in on acco un t of a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd . Se e INA § 24 1( b) (3 )(A ) ; 8 U .S.C. § 12 31 (b )(3 )(A). The ap pl ic an t m us t de m on st rat e th at he wou ld m or e li ke ly th an no t be pe rs ecu te d up on be in g returne d to hi s co un try o f or ig in . Se

pu lv ed a , 40 1 F. 3d at 12 32 . An ap pl ic an t who is un ab le to sa ti sf y th e st an da rd fo r as y lu m ge ne ral ly wil l be un ab le to m eet t h e m or e st rin ge nt st an da rd fo r withh ol di ng of rem ov al . Id
. at 12 32 -3 3. To es tabl is h el ig ib il ity fo r CAT rel ie f, th e ap pl ic an t m

us t de m on st rat e th at it is m or e li ke ly th an no t th at he wou ld be to rtu red if he is rem ov ed to th e de si gn at ed co un try of r e mo v a l . 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 6( c)(2 ). An ap pl ic an t who is no t el ig ib le fo r as y lu m ge ne ral ly wil l be un ab le to m eetth e h ig he r st an da rdfor CAT rel ie f. Al Na

jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 30 3. Inth is cas e, subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s fi nd in g t ha t Weng di d no t h av e a wel l-f

ou nd edfearof f

utur e p ers ecu ti on ba se d o n h is op po si ti onto Ch in a’s fam il y

pl an ni ng po li cy . As th e BIA o bs erv ed , W en g d idno t p res en t an y 10ev id en ce tha t h e h adan y pro bl em s wi th th e b irt h c on tro l o ffi cers be twee n 1 99 9 an d h is de pa rtu re fro m

Ch in a in 20 05 . Thu s, h e fai le d t o e st ab li sh anob jecti ve ly reas on ab le po ss ib il it y

th atbi rth co nt ro l o ffi cers wou ldtar ge t h im forpe rs ecu ti on if h e returne d t o C hi na . Se e Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 2. Al th ou gh W en g su gg es ts th atth e IJan d t he go ve rn m en t s ho ul d h av e as ke d h im ad di ti on al qu es ti on s t o s ee i f he ha d a ny furt he r tr oubl es with t he fam il y pl anni ng off

ic ia ls be fo re h e le ft C hi na , th e b ur de n o f pr oo f was onhi m , no t o n t he ag en cy , to pr oduc e ev id en ce s up po rti ng hi s cl ai m forasylu m . Se e INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(B) (i) , 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(B) (i) ; Kaze mza de h , 57 7 F .3dat 1 35 1. Bec au se W en g c ou ldno t m eetth e st an da rdforasylu m , he n eces saril y was un ab le to m eetth e h ig he r st an da rdforwithh ol di ng of r em ov al . Se e Se pu lv ed a , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 2- 33 . In ad di ti on , subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e BIA’s d en ia l of W en g’s cl ai m

forCAT rel ie f. Altho ug h fo rcedst eri li zat io n c ou ldbe co ns id ered a fo rm of t ortu re, the reco rddo es no t co m pe l the co nc lu si on th atW en g i s l ik el y to be for ci bl y

st eri li zedif h e returns to Ch in a. As n ot edab ov e, aft er the bi rth co nt ro l of fic ia ls th reat en edto st eri li ze Weng , he was ab le to rem ai n i n C hi naforfiv e y ears witho utfurth er i nc id en t. Bec au se W en g d idno t es tabl is h t ha t h e wou ldm or e li ke ly tha n n otbe to rtu redup on hi s re tu rnto Ch in a, th e BIA p ro pe rly den ie d h is cl ai m forCAT rel ie f. Se e 8 C.F .R. § 2 08 .16 (c)( 2) . 11III.

A m ot io n t o re m an d acas e b as edon ne w evi de nc e is ge ne ral ly treat edas a m ot io n t o re op enun de r 8 C .F.R. § 1 00 3.2 (c). Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 30 1; Mat te r of Co elho , 20 I. & N. Dec. 46 4, 4 71 (BIA 1 99 2) . W e rev ie w th e BIA’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enfor

anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Zh an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 57 2 F .3d 13 16 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ Thi s re vi ew is li m it edto de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e BIA ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n a n a rb it rary or cap ric io us m an ne r.” Id
. The BI A m ay de ny a m ot io n t o re op enif t he ap pl ic an t’s n ew ev id en ce fa il s t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e fo r as y lu m . Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 30 2. Th e ap pl ic an t b ears th e

“ he av y bu rd en ” o f sh owi ng th athi s n ew ev id en ce wo ul d l ik el y ch an ge th e ou tc om e o f th e cas e. Aliv. U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 44 3 F .3d80 4, 8 13 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); Mat te r o f Co elho , 20 I. & N. Dec. at 4 73 . Here, Weng ’s new ev id en ce re ga rd in g h is in vo lv em en t i n F al un Gon g d id no t es tabl is h t ha t h e was pr ima fa ci e eli gi bl e fo r as y lu m , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , orCAT rel ie f. Fir st , W en g d idno t s ho w th atth e Ch in es e g ov ern m en t i s ev en aware th athe ha s s ta rte d p ract ic in g F al un Gon g. Weng m ay ha ve cri ti ci zed Ch in a’s fam il y

pl an ni ng po li ci es in th e p as t, b utth ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atth e Ch in es e g ov ern m en t h as id en ti fie d h im as adi ss id en t o r ha s co nt in ue d t o m on it or hi s ac ti vi ti es . W en g a rg ue s t ha t h e h as en ga ge d i n d em on strat io ns ag ai ns t the 12Ch in es e g ov ern m en t, b utth e o nl y reco rdev id en ce tha t h e ci te s i s the cert ifi cat e an d p ho to gr ap hs fro m

th e Glo ba l Se rv ic e Cen te r fo r Qui tt in g C hi ne se Co m m un is t Part y . It i s n otap pa ren t tha t thi s ce rti fic at e o r an y de m on st rat io ns th atW en g m ay ha ve en ga ge d i n h av e co m e to th e at te nt io n o f th e Ch in es e au th or it ie s. Eve n i f th e Ch in es e g ov ern m en t wer e to lea rnof Weng ’s in vo lv em en t i n Fal un Gon g, i t i s far fro m cle ar tha t Weng wou ldbe si ng le d o utfor pe rs ecu ti on . Cf . Zhe ng v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 45 1 F .3d12 87 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ In vo lv em en t with F al un Gon g i n C hi naby its el f do es no t en ti tl e a p ers onto asylum in th e Uni te d S ta te s.”) . The 2 00 8 C ou nt ry Rep ort i nd ic at es th atth e h ars he st pu ni sh m en ts are i m

po se d o n F al un Gon g l ead ers , no t o rd in ary pr act it io ne rs su ch as W en g. Al th ou gh so m e Fal un Gon g a dh eren ts were s en te nc edto reeduc at io n th ro ug h l ab orcam

ps , othe rs were o nl y

requi redto tak e an ti -Fal un Gon g c la ss es . Thu s, i t i s n otap pa ren t tha t an y m is tre atm en t tha t Weng m ig htex pe rie nc e wou ld be ser io us en ou gh to co ns ti tu te pe rs ecu ti on . Becau se W en g’s n ew ev id en ce d id no t es tabl is h t ha t h e was pr ima fa ci e eli gi bl e fo r as y lu m , th e BIA d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n b y

de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r a rem an d. Se e Al Na jj ar , 25 7 F .3dat 1 30 2; Zh an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen
. , 57 2 F .3dat 1 31 9. Acco rd in gl y , aft er re vi ew of th e ad m in is tra ti ve reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we den y

th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. 13PETI TI ON DENI ED.

14