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 6-15-2009 

# Huang-Li 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 . 08-1839

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 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 " Huan g -L i v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1185. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/11851 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. 08- 1839

___________ Q IA N G H U A N G -L I,

Pet i t i oner vs. 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 98- 951- 103) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : M iriam M ill s

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay27, 2009 B efor e: FU E N T E S, W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : Jun e 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

Pet i t i onerQ i ang H uang- L i s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval . For th e re a s o n s th a t f

o llo w , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .2 I. H u a n g -L i is a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f th e P e o p le ’s R e p u b lic o f C h in a . A ccor di ng t o H uang- L i , w hen he l i ved i n C hi na, he di d s o w i th fami l ym ember s i n a h o u se th at he h ad inh erit ed fro m h is fathe r. In M arc h 2 0 0 1 , that h o u se a n d m an yo thers w er e the s ubj ectof a de m ol i t i on or deri s s ued byl ocal governm entoffi ci al s . T he governm entpl anned t o cl earthe l and and r ei m bur s e the r es i dent s of the demol i s hed hom es . T he pr opos ed amountof compensa t i on w as obj ect ed t o as unr eas onabl e bythe re s id e n ts , in c lu d in g H u a n g -L i.

I n M ay2001, governm entcadr es came t o hi s hom e and thr eat ened H uangL i ’ s fami l ybeca us e of thei rfai l ur e t o cooper at e w i th the r el ocat i on pl an. T w o w eeks l at er, go vernm ent w orkers arr i ved atH uan g-L i ’s ho m e and forced h i s fam i l you t si de so th a t d e m o lit io n c o u ld b e g in . P ro v o k e d b yth e tre a tm e n t o f h is m o th e r d u rin g th is i nci dent , H uang- L i as s aul t ed one of the w or ker s . H e w as s ubs equent l yarr es t ed and admi ni s tr at i vel ydet ai ned forfi ft een da y s . H uang- L i t es t i fi ed thatw hi l e i n det ent i on he w as i nt err ogat ed and be at en bygovernm entoffi ci al s . N otl ong aft erhi s r el eas e, H uangL i j oined ab ou tthree hu nd red ot hers i n fron tof a g ov ernm ent offi ce bu i l ding t o p rot est th e d e m o lit io n . T h e p o lice w e re c a lled to d isp e rse th e c ro w d , an d , fe a rin g a n o th e r a rre st, H u a n g -L i b e g a n h is f

lig h t f ro m C h in a . H uang- L i ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n Sept ember2005 w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed byi m m i gr at i on offi ci al s . Soon aft er , he j oi ned the PartyforFr eedom3

and D em ocracyi n C hina ( “P F D C ”), a group i n the U nit ed S t at es that oppo ses the C hinese g o v e rn m e n t. E v e n tu a lly , H u a n g -L i w a s is su e d a N o tice to A p p e a r, ch a rg in g h im w ith r emovabi l i tybas ed on hi s unl aw ful entry . H e conc eded r emovabi l i tyand r eques t ed r el i ef i n the form of as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A g a in st T o rtu re . H e c laim e d th a t if re tu rn e d to C h in a , h e w o u ld b e jaile d f o r h is o p p o s i t i o n t o th e d e mo l i t i o n o f h i s h o u s e , a n d a l s o f

o rh i s p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s wi th P F DC in th e U n ite d S ta te s .

A ft era hea r i ng, the i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) or der ed H uang- L i r emoved, fi ndi ng thathi s acc ountof pert i nentevent s l acke d cr edi bi l i tyand s uffi ci entpr oof. T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed w i thoutopi ni on. H uang- L i then fi l ed thi s t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew , as s ert i ng thr ee i s s ues foradj udi cat i on: 1) “I s M r . H uangL i ’ s cas e a mi xed mot i ve ca s e i n w hi ch he s how ed thathi s pol i t i cal opi ni on w as a ce nt r al r eas on forhi s arr es tand t or tur e?”; 2) “I s the B I A appr oach t o m i xed mot i ve ca s es as en u n ciated b yM att er o f S -P - . . . sti ll g o o d law in li g h t of the d em an d s o f th e R E A L ID A c t? ” ; an d 3 ) “ D o e s th e re c o rd su p p o rt M r. H u a n g -L i’s c o n ten tio n th a t a m ix e d m o tiv e is a p p ro p ri a te in h is c a s e ? ” . II.

W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 547 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . H ow ever , “[s ] ect i on 1252( d) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ctpr ovi des thatthe court s of appe al s ‘ m ay4

r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval onl yi f - ( 1) the al i en has exhaus t ed al l admi ni s tr at i ve rem ed ies av ail ab le t o the a li en as o f righ t. ’” H o x h a v . H o lder, 55 9 F . 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 5 9 (3d C ir . 20 09 ) ( qu oti ng 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2(d)( 1)) . “[I] ssue exh aust i on as r equ i red by12 52 (d) (1) i s a j ur i s di ct i onal rul e. ” I d. at159 n. 3. T hus , an al i en must“r ai s e orexhaus thi s orher r emedi es as t o eac h cl ai m orgr ound forr el i ef [ befor e the B I A ] i f he ors he i s t o pr es erve th e ri g h t o f

ju d ic ia l r e v ie w o f

th a t c la im .” Id . a t 1 5 9 . O n a p p e a l b e f

o re th e B IA , H u a n g -L i ch a llen g e d th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on, and ar gued thathe had “ carr i ed the bur den of pr oof i n hi s cl ai m thathe w a s a rr e s te d in C h in a f

o r p o litic a l r e a s o n s a n d th a t th e J u d g e re a d th e IN A to o n a rr o w ly.” ( A . R . 9, 11. ) N ot abl y , H uang- L i di d notpr es entanycl ai m s conce rni ng “mi xed- m ot i ve” p e r s e c u t i o n i n h i s b r i e f

o ri n h i s n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l t o th e BI A. Th e r e f o r e , th e o n l yc l a i ms rip e f o r o u r re v iew c o n c e rn H u a n g -L i’s c h a llen g e to th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n a n d h is a lleg a tio n s o f p a st a n d p ro sp e c tiv e p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f b o th h is o p p o s itio n to th e d e m o litio n o f h is h o u s e in C h in a a n d h is m e m b e rs h ip in P F D C . III . W h en the B IA issue s an af firm an ce w ith o u t op inion , “w e re v iew the IJ’s o p inion an d scru ti n ize it s rea so n ing . ” S ee D ia v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (e n b a n c ). W e re v iew b o th th e IJ’ s f a c tu a l f in d in g s a n d h e r a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See B r i s eno- Fl or es v. A t t ’ yG en. , 492 F. 3d 226, 22 8 (3d C i r. 20 07 ); G ao v . A shcroft , 29 9 F . 3d 26 6, 27 2 (3d C i r. 20 02 ). T he IJ’ s adverse5

c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n w ill n o t b e d istu rb e d 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 co m pell ed to con cl ud e t o the con trary . ” D i a, 35 3 F . 3d at24 9. F urtherm ore, becau se H uang- L i 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 in c o n sis ten c ies , ina c c u ra c ies , o r f a lse h o o d s u p o n w h ich th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty fi ndi ng i s bas ed nee d notgo the hea r tof hi s cl ai m . See Li n v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 1 1 9 n . 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).



### Th e IJbas ed h eradver sec re dib il ity de te rm in ation on s eve ral f ac tor s, n ot le astof

wh ic hwer e Huan g- Li’ s fail ureto r eas onab ly c orr obor ate h is claims that he wa s beaten while in detentio n and thathis membe rship in PFDC would c aus e th e C h in es e gove rnme nt to de tain or pe rs ec ute h im i f

h e r et urn s t o Chin a. In

parti c ular, Huan g- Li pr ovide d n o doc ume ntati on of me dic al treatment, claiming tha t there was nothing to show because his in juries were “internal”; nor d id his mot her’ s letter make a ny mention thathe was beaten while deta ined. The IJalso no ted t hat PF DC is not refe renc ed in any o f the relevant Cou ntry Rep orts, and tha t H ua ng-Li failed t o p rov ide a ny ot her r e as on ab l e c or r ob or at i on to de m on s tr at e th atPF D Ci s an or ga n i za ti on reco gniz ed by Chi na o r t ha t C hin a ta rg et s m ember s o f th a t o rg a niz a ti o n. Mo reover, the IJfound a n inc onsistenc y in Hu ang-Li’s testimony a s to w hen he h ad re c ei ved a doc ume nt fromth e P ub li c Se c uri ty Bur eau re gardi n g h is de te nti on . I nl i ght o f

al l th e s e i nc on s i s te nc i e s an d f ai l ur e s to pr ov i deE v e n a ss u m in g , arg u e n d o , tha t H u a n g -L i co u ld o v e rc o m e th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty 1 det erm i nat i on, he w oul d notbe ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. W hen as ked byhi s att orneyon di r ect e x a m i n a t i o n , “ [ w ] h a th a r m d o yo u f e a r , ” H u a n g - L i r e s p o n d e d a s f o l l o w s : “ J u s tp r o b a b l y I w oul d be puti n j ai l . ” ( A . R . 85. ) A fea rof pr os ecut i on m aycons t i tut e gr ounds foras y l um i f the pr os ecut i on i s m ot i vat ed byone of the fi ve enumer at ed fa ct or s , “and i f the puni s hm entunderthe 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 er e, nei thercondi t i on i s s uppor t ed byt he re c o rd . 6 

### corrobora ting p roo f, the IJ f ou nd Hu ang-Li t o be incre dible.

Itis no t eno u g h that w e m igh t hav e f o u n d H u an g -L i cred ible if w e w ere hear i ng hi s t es t i m onyi n the fi r s ti ns t ance . A dver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs m us tbe af for ded s ubs t ant i al defe r ence , s o l ong as theyar e s uppor t ed bys uffi ci ent , cogentr eas ons . See B ut tv. G onzal es , 429 F. 3d 430, 434 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e ar e convi nced thats uch r eas ons exi s ther e. T her efor e, w e ca nnots aythat“anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude” thatH uang- L i w as a cr edi bl e w i tnes s athi s hear i ng. D i a, 353 F. 3d at249. 1 Ac c o r d i n g l y , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.