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. 09- 4623

___________ M E I H U A C U I, 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 098- 594- 352) 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)

A ugus t30, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t31, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM P e t i t i o n e r , M e i Hu a Cu i , s e e k s r e v i e w o f th e Bo a r d o f

I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ’ ( BI A)2

f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . I. Cu i , a n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o f Ch i n a , e n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n J a n u a ry2 0 0 5 . On A ugus t18, 2005, s he appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on under the C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( C A T ) , cl ai m i ng thats he w oul d be per s ecut ed i f for ced to re tu rn to C h in a o n a c c o u n t o f h e r p o litic a l in v o lv e m e n t w ith N o rt h K o re a n re f u g e e s . A therr emoval hear i ng, C ui t es t i fi ed thats he l eftC hi na bec aus e s he had be en underi nves t i gat i on foratt empt i ng t o hel p a N orth K or ean r efuge e obt ai n fr audul ent i dent i fi cat i on paper s . C ui expl ai ned that , befor e l eavi ng the country , s he had be en w o rk in g a t a c lo th in g sto re . O n e d a y , a f rie n d a sk e d h e r w h e th e r sh e m ig h t b e a b le to obt ai n fake i dent i fi cat i on paper s fora r el at i ve fr om N orth K or ea w ho w as i n C hi na i l l egal l y . C ui thoughts he mi ghtbe abl e t o hel p beca us e s he had onc e hea r d cus t om er s at the cl othi ng s t or e t al ki ng abouteff ort s t o hel p N orth K or ean r efuge es . T o thi s end, s he ask ed h er b o ss at the c lothing store w h ethe r he co u ld h elp th e f ri en d ’s relat ive. C u i’ s bos s t ol d herthathe knew nothi ng aboutfake paper s and di d nothave a nyother in f o rm a tio n f

o r h e r. C ui t es t i fi ed thatC hi nes e author i t i es then ca m e t o the s t or e t o i nves t i gat e w hether h e r b o ss h a d b e e n a ss istin g N o rth K o re a n re f u g e e s, a n d late r w e n t to C u i’s h o m e to i nform herthats he had be en i m pl i cat ed i n the i nves t i gat i on. A ccor di ng t o C ui , the pol i ce le f t w ith o u t a rr e s tin g h e r. T h a t s a m e d a y , s h e d e c id e d to le a v e th e c o u n try .C u i d o e s n o t s e e k re v ie w o f th e a g e n c y ’s d is p o s itio n o f h e r C A T c la im . 1 3 C ui t ol d the courtthat , s oon aft erarr i vi ng i n the U ni t ed St at es , s he j oi ned the C h in e se Ju stic e a n d D e m o c ra c yP a rty(C JD P ), an o rg a n iza tio n d e d ica ted to h e lp in g N o rth K or ean i m m i gr ant s i n C hi na. C ui s t at ed thats he has been a ct i ve i n thi s or gani zat i on by att endi ng pr ot es t s and publ i s hi ng tw o art i cl es i n s upportof the C J D P’ s m i s s i on. C ui cl ai m ed thatC hi nes e author i t i es had r ece nt l yl earned of he rpol i t i cal act i vi t i es i n the U ni t ed St at es and had or der ed hert o w i thdr aw fr om the C J D P. C ui furthercl ai m ed that m ember s of the C J D P w ho had bee n for ced t o r eturn t o C hi na had be en arr es t ed, d e ta in e d , a n d s e n t to la b o r c a m p s . Fol l ow i ng the hea r i ng, an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) found thatC ui ’ s t es t i m onyw as n o t cred ible b ec au se h er storyw as c o n fu sing , im p laus ible, an d inco n sist en t. T h e IJ ther efor e deni ed herappl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C A T . C ui s oughtadmi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew , butthe B I A di s m i s s ed herappea l . C ui n o w p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f th e B IA ’s ord er. 1 II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s deci s i on fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483–84 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . U nderthi s s t andar d, w e w i l l uphol d the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on u n le s s “ a n yre a s o n a b le a d ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c lu d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ) . B ecaus e C ui fi l ed herappl i cat i on aft erthe ena ctm ent4

of the R E A L I D A ctof 2005, the age ncy ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons ar e governed bythe A ct. S ee C h u k w u v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). U n d er the R E A L ID A ct, an IJ m ayb ase h is cred ibil ityd eterm ination o n o b serv ati o n s o f th e a p p li ca n t’ s d e me a n o r , th e p l a u s i b i l i tyo f h e rs t o ry , a n d o n th e c o n s i s t e n c yo f h e rs t a t e me n t s . S e e I NA § 208( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) ; G abuni y a v. A tt ’ yG en. , 463 F. 3d 316, 322 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W hen an ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination is ba sed o n im p laus ibil ity , there m u st be rec o rd s uppor tand s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons fors uch a de t erm i nat i on. B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F .3 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). O n ap p ea l, C u i fi rstarg u es th at su b stan ti al ev iden ce d o es n o t sup p o rtthe a g en cy ’s i m pl aus i bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. W e di s agr ee, as the r ecor d r efl ect s thatthe I J pr ovi ded s peci fi c, cogentr eas ons forhi s i m pl aus i bi l i tyfi ndi ng. See i d. Fori ns t ance , the I J found i ti m pl aus i bl e thatC ui ’ s fr i end w oul d as k hert o obt ai n fal s e i dent i fi cat i on paper s w hen C ui had no bac kgr ound i n ei thercr i m i nal act i vi tyorhum ani t ar i an ef fort s . Si m i l ar l y , the I J s t at ed thathe di d notunder s t and “w hatl ed [Cui ] t o bel i eve thatherbos s w ant ed t o get hi m s el f i nvol ved i n pr ovi di ng fal s e document s t o N orth K or ean r efuge es , ” and thats he offe r ed no expl anat i on as t o w hys he s ol i ci t ed hi s hel p. T he I J al s o s t at ed thati tw as i m pl aus i bl e thatC ui w oul d deci de t o l eave C hi na af t erthe pol i ce que s t i oned her , as the p o li ce d id n o t arresth er, i n d icate tha t th eyw o u ld se ek a w arran t, o r ev en ask h er to rep o rt b a c k to th e sta tio n . B e c a u se th e se f in d in g s a re re a so n a b lyg ro u n d e d in th e re c o rd , w e w ill defe rt o the I J ’ s i m pl aus i bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. See D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 249 ( 3d5

C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). C ui al s o ar gues thatthe i ncons i s t enci es i n hert es t i m onyaboutherw ork w i th the C J D P w e re n o t s ig n if

ic a n t e n o u g h to s u p p o rtth e IJ ’s a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . W e r ej ectthi s ar gum entas w el l . I n hi s or al deci s i on, the I J not ed that , al though C ui tes tifie d th a t sh e h a d w ritten tw o a rticle s f o r th e C JD P w e b site , sh e w a s o n lya b le to p ro d u c e a c o p yo f

o n e a rticle . S im ilarly , alth o u g h C u i tes tifie d th a t sh e a tten d e d p ro tes ts and con ferences w i th the C JD P , she w as unab l e t o ident i fythe p art i culareven t s. T hese inco n sist en cies, w h en v iew ed tog ethe r an d alon g w ith the g en era l i m p laus ibil ityo f C u i’ s s t ory , s uppor tthe I J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. See, e. g. , L i n v. M ukas ey , 534 F. 3d 162, 167 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng that , underthe R E A L I D A ct , “an I J m ayr el yon any i ncons i s t encyorom i s s i on i n m aki ng an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on as l ong as the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s es t abl i s hes thatan as y l um appl i canti s notcr edi bl e”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and emphas i s i n or i gi nal om i t t ed) . Fur therm or e, t o the ext ent th a t C u i ar g u e s th a t th e c ited in c o n sis ten c ies a re c o llate ra l to h e r c laim s, w e n o te th a t, u n d e r th e R E A L ID A c t, cre d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s m a yb e m a d e “ w ith o u t re g a rd to w h ethe r an inco n sist en cy , inac cu rac y , o r fa lseh o o d g o es to the h ea rto f th e a p p li ca n t’ s cl ai m . ” G abuni y a v. A tt ’ yG en. , 463 F. 3d 316, 321 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s o m itte d ). III . F o r th ese rea so n s, w e a re sa ti sfied that su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B IA ’sT o the e x tent that C u i argu es th at th e B IA erred in f ail ing to ad d ress the IJ’s 2 a ltern a tiv e c o n c lu sio n th a t sh e f a iled to m e e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f , w e n o te th a t a p e rse c u tio n c laim th a t lac k s c re d ib ili tyc a n n o t sa tisf yth e b u rd e n s o f

p ro o f n e c e ss a ryto e s ta b lis h e lig ib ility f

o r a s y lu m o r w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l. See X i e v. A shcrof t , 359 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 1 -42 (3d C i r. 20 0 4 ). 6 deci s i on aff

i rm i ng the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e ar e not compel l ed t o concl ude thatthe B I A err ed i n deny i ng C ui ’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) . T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be 2 d e n ie d .