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 7-6-2010 

# H e ng 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 . 09-2118

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 authori 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 " H e n g C he n v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1021. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1021NOT 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. 09- 2118

___________ HE NG C AI CH E N,

Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ 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 094- 799- 621) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

M ar ch 24, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y6, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM P et i t i on er, H eng C ai C hen , seeks r eview of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s’ (“ B IA ” ) f

in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. F o r t h e f

o llo w in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yh is p e titio n .2 I . C h e n , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f C h in a , e n te re d th e U n ite d S ta te s o n A u g u s t 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 . C hen s t at ed thathe l eftC hi na t o s eek a s y l um fortw o r eas ons : ( 1) the may orof hi s vi l l age tr i ed t o for ce hi m t o m arr yhi s daught er , caus i ng hi m t o run aw ayfr om hi s vi l l age; and ( 2) h e s u f f e re d re lig io u s p e rs e c u tio n s h o rt ly b e f o re h e le f

t C h in a . O n A pr i l 19, 2007, C hen fi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on on the bas i s of hi s pol i t i cal opi ni on and r el i gi on. A ta cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew , C hen s t at ed thatthe chi ef of hi s vi l l age appr oache d hi m and as ked hi m t o m arryhi s daught eri n J une 2005. C hen fl ed and t ook a jo b in F u z h o u C ityw ith a n in d iv id u a l w h o in tro d u c e d h im to C a th o licism . In a n a f f id a v it att ache d t o hi s s t at ement , C hen s t at ed thati n D ece m ber2005 he w as bapt i zed bya pas t or o f th e R o m a n C a th o lic C h u rc h . W h ile in F u z h o u C ity , h e a tten d e d a n in f o rm a l b ib le s tudym eet i ng w her e he w as arr es t ed and de t ai ned bythe author i t i es for48 hour s , w ho a lle g e d ly b e a t h im b yh o ld in g a b o o k o n h is c h e s t a n d u s in g a h a m m e r t o h it th e b o o k . W hen as ked byhi s cr edi bl e fe ari nt ervi ew erw ho the Pope w as , C hen r es ponded thathe d id n o t k n o w . I n J anuary2008, C hen t es t i fi ed ata hea r i ng befor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge. C hen s t at ed that , aft erhe r efus ed t o m arr ythe may or ’ s di s abl ed daught eri n J une, the may or th re a te n e d to h a v e th e p o lic e in v e s tig a te h im a n d h is f a m ily b e c a u s e th e yw e re C a th o lic . W hen he w entt o l i ve i n Fuzhou C i ty , he w as br oughtt o an under gr ound C athol i c chur ch w her e he a nd thi r tychur ch mem ber s w er e arr es t ed atan i l l egal chur ch meet i ng atthe end3

of 2005. H e di s cus s ed how the author i t i es as s aul t ed hi m , butadmi t t ed thathe w as not phy s i cal l yi nj ur ed and di d nots eek a doct orortr eatm entaft erhe w as r el eas ed. H e s t at ed thatbefor e l eavi ng C hi na, he w as bapt i zed. O nce he arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es , he a tte n d e d a c h u rc h in N e w Y o rk a b o u t o n c e a w e e k . O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , C h e n sta ted th a t h e a lw a y s a tten d e d a re g iste re d C a th o lic chur ch w i th hi s fami l y , buthe coul d notpr ovi de the name of the chur ch orthe name of a per s on w ho r an i t . C hen w as as ked w hyhe w ai t ed unt i l D ece m ber2005 t o be bapt i zed, and af t erthe ques t i on w as r epea t ed, ther e w as a l ong paus e, and C hen r es ponded thathe d id n o t r e a liz e th e im p o rt a n c e o f b a p tis m u n til h e a tte n d e d th e u n d e rg ro u n d c h u rc h . W h e n q u e stio n e d d ire c tlyb yth e IJ, C h e n h a d d if f icu ltyid e n tify in g w h a t th e sa c ra m e n ts w er e. H i s att orneyattr i but ed hi s m i s under s t andi ng t o C hen’ s tr ans l at or , even though t he IJ e m p h a siz e d th e im p o rta n c e o f h is o w n tra n sla to r p ro p e rlytra n sla tin g iss u e s re latin g to hi s r el i gi on. H e expl ai ned thathe coul d noti dent i fythe Pope athi s cr edi bl e fe ar i nt ervi ew beca us e he w as t oo nervous orm i s under s t ood hi m . H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatthe curr ent Pop e res i des i n the U nit ed S t at es. I n hi s deci s i on, the I J found thatC hen w as notcr edi bl e, had i ncons i s t ent t es t i m ony , and had nots uffi ci ent l ycorr obor at ed hi s cas e. T he I J s peci fi cal l ynot ed that C hen’ s demeanorw as thatof a pe r s on w ho di d notknow the ans w ert o m anyof the ques t i ons and w ho oft en paus ed t o gai n m or e t i m e t o thi nk of an a ns w er . R el y i ng on C hen’ s i nabi l i tyt o ans w erkeyques t i ons aboutC athol i ci s m , hi s contr adi ct i ons betw een4

hi s t es t i m onyand s t at ement s t o t he as y l um offi cer , and thathe w as otherw i s e vague w hen di s cus s i ng det ai l s aboutthe pr act i ce of hi s r el i gi on, the I J deni ed al l r el i ef. C h en ap p ea led to the B IA , w h o af firm ed the IJ’s d ec isi o n . A lth o u g h the B IA n o ted th a t C h e n su f

f icie n tlye x p lain e d o n e in c o n sis ten c yin h is a p p e a l, his f a ilu re to r econc i l e numer ous ot her s and hi s l ack of corr obor at i ve evi dence l ed the B I A t o concl ude that the IJ’ s adverse cr edibi l i tydeterm i nati on w as not cl earl yerr on eou s. T he B IA al so found thatC hen had f

ai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof. A ccor di ngl y , the B I A aff i r m ed th e IJ’ s f in d in g th a t C h e n f

a iled to p ro v e e lig ib ili tyf o r a sy lu m o r w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, an d C A T p rotec ti o n . C h en n o w p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f th e B IA ’s ord er. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof r emoval pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . See A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 548 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W hen, as i n thi s cas e, the B I A s ubs t ant i al l yr el i es on the fi ndi ngs of the I J , w e r evi ew the d ec isi o n s o f b o th the B IA an d the IJ. S ee X ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 9 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e re v iew thes e f ind ing s, inclu d ing an ycre d ibil ityd eterm ination s, u n d er a s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . S e e C a o v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A n a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g m u st b e u p h e ld u n les s “ a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ” B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 322 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ) . B eca us e C hen fi l ed hi s as y l um appl i cat i on aft erthe ena ctm entof the R E A L I D A ct , the i ncons i s t enci es , i nacc ur aci es , or5

fal s ehoods upon w hi ch the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng i s bas ed nee d notgo the hea r tof hercl ai m . See Li n v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 119 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . R ather , the R E A L ID A ct pe rm it s cre d ibil ityd eterm ination s to b e b ase d o n o b serv ati o n s o f C h en ’s demeanor , the pl aus i bi l i tyof hi s s t ory , and on the cons i s t encyof hi s s t at ement s . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(B )(i ii ); G ab u n iy a v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 6 3 F . 3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 2 n . 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e c o n c lu d e th a t C h e n is in e lig ib le f o r a sy lu m b e c a u se th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on i s w el l s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. C hen’ s t es t i m ony i s r epl et e w i th i ncons i s t enci es , and C hen fa i l s t o adequa t el yexpl ai n thes e i ncons i s t enci es i n hi s br i ef. Forexampl e, C hen does notexpl ai n w hyhe neve rt ol d the as y l um offi cer d u rin g th e c re d ib le f

e a r in ter v iew th a t th e m a y o r th re a ten e d h im b e c a u se o f h is a n d h is fami l y ’ s r el i gi on. I n hi s ear l i ers t at ement s t o the as y l um offi cer , C hen s t at ed thathe jo in e d th e C a th o lic C h u rc h b e f o re h e lef

t C h in a in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , an d a ll o f h is re sp o n se s to th e a sy lu m o f f ice r a b o u t h is C a th o licism h a v e to d o w ith th e tim e p e rio d in D ece m ber2005 and af

t er . H e neve rdi s cl os ed t o the as y l um offi certhathe had a ny con t actw i th C at ho l i ci sm befo re l at e 20 05 , even w hen he w as di rect l yqu est i on ed o n those i s s ues . I tw as notunt i l C hen’ s hear i ng befor e the I J thathe cha nged hi s s t oryt o connec t th e in c id e n t w ith th e m a y o r to h is p ra c tice o f C a th o licism , sta tin g th a t th e m a y o r “ w o u ld acc us e me of bei ng a mem berof thati l l egal chur ch and a s k the pol i ce t o come arr es tm e. ” (A R 1 1 6 . )6

I n hi s br i ef, C hen att empt s t o ar gue thati tw as obvi ous thatthe may orthr eat ened hi m beca us e hi s C athol i c r el i gi on. T hi s as s ert i on i s m ade w i thoutpoi nt i ng t o any evi dence i n t he r ecor d. I n addi t i on, w hen r evi ew i ng hi s hear i ng t es t i m ony , C hen s t at ed th a t h e w a s n o t a t r is k f o r a tte n d in g a g o v e rn m e n t- re g is te re d c h u rc h w ith h is f a m ily. C h e n a lso f

a ils to e x p lain h o w th e m a y o r c o u ld h a v e th re a ten e d to h a v e h im a rre ste d in Ju n e 2 0 0 5 f

o r a tten d in g a n ill e g a l ch u rc h , w h e n th e f irst tim e h e c a m e in to c o n tac t w ith an i l l egal chur ch w as D ece m ber2005, m onths aft erhe fl ed the vi l l age. C hen al s o does notexpl ai n how he appe ar ed t o know veryl i t t l e aboutthe C athol i c r el i gi on, as demonstr at ed byhi s i ncorr ectr es pons e forw her e the Pope r es i des and hi s confus i on over the s acr ament s . R ather , he ar gues thatthe I J ’ s ques t i ons w er e opaque orthatdoctr i nal know l edge i s i ns uffi ci entt o denyC hen r el i ef. C oupl ed w i th C hen’ s m at er i al i ncons i s t enci es , hi s i nabi l i tyt o ans w erbas i c ques t i ons aboutC athol i ci s m cas t s doubton his credi bil i tyand the v eraci tyof h i s cl ai m s. C h e n a lso a rg u e s in h is b rie f th a t th e IJ’ s f

in d in g re g a rd in g h is d e m e a n o r is i nacc ur at e. T hi s C our tm us tacc or d an eve n gr eat erdegr ee of defe r ence t o per s onal o b s e r v a t i o n s o f

d e m e a n o rb y a n I J , w h o i s i n th e u n i q u e p o s i t i o n t o o b s e r v e t e s t i m o n y, candor , and r es pons i venes s , es peci al l yw hen thi s i nfer ence i s s uppor t ed bys peci fi c and cogentr eas ons fordoubt i ng the ver aci tyof the t es t i m ony . D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 2 5 2 n .2 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (e n b a n c ); se e a lso R E A L ID A c t § 1 0 1 (a )(3 )(iii), co d if ied a t 8 U . S . C . § 1 15 8(b)( 1)( B )( i i i ). H ere, the IJ s pecifi cal l yno t ed thatC hen ’s dem eano r w as:7 [S] ugges t i ve of s om eone w ho i s extr emel yuncomfort abl e bei ng her e, t es t i fy i ng, w ho does notr eal l yknow the ans w er s t o m anyof thes e ques t i ons , w ho paus es l ong and har d betw een manyof the ques t i ons thatw er e as ked hi m , w ho fr equent l yas ked ques t i ons t o be r epea t ed i n t he C our t ’ s vi ew s i m pl yt o getm or e t i m e, i tbei ng the cas e thatther e w as no di ffi cul tyi n hi m under s t andi ng the tr ans l at or o r th e tran slat o r un d erstan d ing h im , at l ea st so f ar a s o u r tran slat o r, J os ephi ne C hen, t ol d us , dur i ng the cour s e of t oday ’ s hear i ng. (A R 6 8 .) T h e tra n sc rip t o f th e h e a rin g in d ica tes th a t C h e n w a s n o t re sp o n siv e to q u e stio n s, so m e o f

w h ich w e re re p e a ted . T h e IJ n o ted f o r th e re c o rd o n tw o sp e c if ic o c c a sio n s w h e n C h e n p a u se d f o r a len g th ytim e a n d c o u ld n o t an sw e r q u e stio n s th a t co u ld b e a n s we r e d i f

h e we r e t e l l i n g th e tru th . Ac c o r d i n g l y , g i v e n o u rr e v i e w o f th e r e c o r d , we a g re e th a t C h e n ’s d e m e a n o r c o m b in e d w ith h is in c o n sis ten c ies p ro v id e a su f f icie n t b a sis t o s uppor tan adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. W e a lso f

in d n o e rro r in th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e IJ a n d B IA th a t C h e n f a iled to p rov ide re aso n ab lyav ail ab le co rrob o rati v e e v iden ce . U n d er the R E A L ID A ct, w h ere t es t i m onyal one i s nots uffi ci entt o s us t ai n a bur den of pr oof, corr obor at i ng evi dence

“ m u st b e p ro v id e d u n les s th a t ap p lica n t d o e s n o t h a v e th e e v id e n c e a n d c a n n o t re a so n a b ly obt ai n the evi dence . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) ; s ee a l s o C hukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 484 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 1 -9 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). C h e n f a iled to p ro v id e a n yw itn e ss e s f ro m h is c h u rc h in the U ni t ed St at es , des pi t e the cl os e pr oxi m i tyof the chur ch t o the hea r i ng l ocat i on. T he d o c u m e n ts h e su b m itt e d f ro m C h in a w e re u n a u th e n tica ted a n d th e lette rs h e in c lu d e d d id notdemonstr at e anyfi r s t - hand know l edge. C hen’ s ar gum enti n hi s br i ef thatthe i m m i gr at i on j udge s houl d “t el ephone c hur ch l eade r s , ” and f aul t i ng the I J fornoti ns truct i ng hi m on pr operdocument at i on, cl ear l ydemonstr at es a mi s under s t andi ng of

C h en ’s bu rde n o f p roo f a n d R E A L ID A ct pro v isi o n s. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(B )(i i) . F o r th ese rea so n s, w e a g ree w ith the n eg ati v e c red ibil ityfin d ing b ase d o n C h en ’s demeanorand the i ncons i s t enci es i n hi s s t ory . W e al s o agr ee thathe fa i l ed t o pr ovi de c o rr o b o ra tin g e v id e n c e . A c c o rd in g ly, th e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w is d e n ie d .

8