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 2-24-2009 

# G a o v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-1915

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " G a o v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1830. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/18301 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. 07- 1915 Z HAOJ I NG GAO , 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 Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof t he B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 97- 521- 525) B e f o re : M c K E E , F U E N T E S a n d W E IS , C i r cui tJudges . 

### Subm itte d p ursuant t o T hird Circ uit LAR34 .1(a)

Jul y 24, 2008 ( Opi ni on fi l e d: Fe br

uary 24, 2009) OP INI ON M cK E E , Ci rc ui t

J udge . Zha oji ng Ga o pe t i t i ons for r e vi e w of afi na lor de r

of the Boar d of I mm i gr at i on Appe a l s whi c h a ffi rm e d the de c i s i on of an I mm i gr at i on Judge de nyi ng hi s a ppl i c at i ons fo r a sylum , withh olding of re m ov aland rel ie f und er the Con vention A gainst

To rt ure ( “ CA T” ) . Fo r

the r e a s on s that

fo l l ow , we wi l lde ny

the pe t i t i onfo r

r e vi e w.A n al i en mustpr ove bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hathe fi l ed hi s as y l um 1 a p p lic a tio n w ith in o n e y e a r o f a rr iv a l in th e U n ite d S ta te s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( B ). H ow ever , i f t he al i en ca n demonst r at e “e i t hert he exi s t ence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s w h ich m aterial lyaf

fe ct t h e a p p li ca n t’ s eli g ibil ityfo r asy lum o r ex tr ao rdin ary (c o n tin u e d ...) 2 

### I. Be c aus e we wr i t e pr i m ar i l y for the part i e s , who ar e i nt i m at e l y fam i l i ar wi th the fact s of this c as e, we willre ci te on ly such fact s andprocedural hi st ory as ar e nec es sary f o r o ur d isp o sitio no f

th is p etitio nf

o r rev iew . T o b e e lig ib le f

o r a sy lu m u n d e r S e c tio n 2 0 8 o f th e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A ct( “I N A ”) , 8 U . S. C . § 1158, an appl i cantm us tes t abl i s h “per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded fea rof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” See 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . T o be el i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval underSect i on 241( b) ( 3) of t he I N A , t he appl i cant m us tdemonst r at e thathi s “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be t hr eat ened i n [t he countr yof r emoval ] beca us e of r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . A n al i en 

### who ha s fa i l e d t o s at i s fy the stan d ard s f

o r asylum is n ecessarily

in elig ib le f

o r w ithh o ld in g o f

rem o v al. Zu beda v. A sh cro ft , 333 F. 3d 463, 469- 70 ( 3d Ci r . 2003) . To qua l i fy for r e l i e f unde r

the CAT, the ap p lican t m

u st d em o n strate th at it is m o re lik ely th ann o t th at h e/sh e w o u ldb e to rturedif rem o v ed . 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 6 (c)(2 ). T h e IJ f o un dth at G ao ’s asylum

p etitio nw as tim ely b ut th at h e w as n o t cred ib le 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 ci r cumst ance s r el at i ng t o t he del ayi n fi l i ng t he appl i cat i on, ” fa i l ur e t o fi l e w i t hi n t he one y ea r pe ri o d m ay b e e x cu sed . 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (a)(2)(D ). T h e IJ f o u n d that G ao ’s a p p lica tio n w a s tim e lyf iled . JA 5 7 . P u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )(3 ), “[ n ]o c o u rt sh a ll h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a n yd e te rm in a tio n ” u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 2 )( D ). S e e , e .g ., T a rr a w a lly v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Sukw anput r a v. G onz al es , 434 F .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). 3 

### and c oul d the r e for e not

m e e t hi s bur de n of pr ovi ng the a l l e gat i ons of pe r s e c ut i on or tort ure. Sh e noted, how ever , that i f G ao were c re dible, she wou ld conclude that he had m e t hi s bur de n of s howi ng awe l l - founde d fe ar of futur e pe r s e c ut i on i n Chi na . Ba s e d on he r fi ndi ng of a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty , howe ve r , the I Jde ni e d Ga o’ s r e que s t s for a s yl um and w ithh o ld in g o f

rem o v al. Inad d itio n , b ecau se th e IJ co n clu d edth at G ao w as n o t cred ib le re garding the al le gati on s und erlying h is cl ai m fo r a sylum

and w it hh olding of

re m ov al (which were t

he sam e a ll egat ions that

supp orte d h is CA T cla im), the I J foundthat Gao fa i l e d t o e s t abl i s h that

he qu a l i fi e d f

or pr ot e c t i onun de r

the CA T. Gao app ea le d the IJ ’s advers e c re dibili ty dete rminat ion to the BIA, wh ic h affirm ed the I J’ s dec is ion andprov ided additi on alanal y si s. Wher e the BIA iss ues an opi ni on a ffi rm i ng the I J ’ s de c i s i on and offe r i ng a ddi t i ona lana l y s i s , we l ook t o both the IJ’s an dth e B IA ’s d ecisio n s. S ee A b d u la i v. A sh cro

ft , 239 F.3d54 2, 54 8-49 n.2 (3dCir. 20 01 ). We re view fact

ual finding s, includ ing adv er se cr edibil it y find ings, for substantia l ev id en ce. C

h en v. A sh cro

ft , 376 F.3d21 5, 22 3 (3dCir. 20 04 ). Un der the substantia l ev id en ce stan d ardo f

rev iew , a cred ib ility

d eterm in atio nw ill b e up h eldun less a reaso n ab le f

actf in d er w o u ldb e co m

p elledto co n clu d e to th e co n trary . Id .T o s uppor thi s cl ai m t hathe w as a Fal un G ong pr act i t i oner , G ao s ubm i t t ed ( 1) an 2 al l eged mem ber s hi p cer t i fi cat e i s s ued byt he C hangl e Fal un G ong A s s oci at i on i n J une 2001, i ndi cat i ng t hathe had c om pl et ed an a dvance d Fal un G ong cour s e, ( 2) an al l eged w r i t t en i nvi t at i on t o at t end a Fal un G ong confe r ence i n B angkok, T hai l and and ( 3) an al l eged hos pi t al l et t erdat ed Februar y1998 r egar di ng hi s father ’ s admi s s i on form ent al h e a lth p ro b lem s. A t a h e a rin g , a D H S F o re n sic D o c u m e n t E x a m in e r w ith a sp e c ialityin au then ti ca ti n g C h ines e d o cu m en ts, su b m it ted a w ri tt en rep o rtan d test ifi ed that G ao ’s al l eged Fal un G ong m ember s hi p cer t i fi cat e coul d notbe authent i cat ed. T he Exam i ner al s o expl ai ned t hatbot h C anadi an and U . S. offi ci al s confi r m ed t hatFal un G ong does not iss u e m e m b e rsh ip d o c u m e n ts in C h in a , an d th a t th e ya re a v a ilab le f o r a f e e f ro m sc h o o ls t hat “faci l i t at e i m m i grat i on t o the U nit ed S t at es. ” JA 39 3. T he E xam i ner’ s R epo rtal so i ndi cat ed t hatt he al l eged Fal un G ong i nvi t at i on fort he conf er ence i n B angkok and the all eg ed F eb rua ry1 9 9 8 h o sp it al l ett er reg ard ing G ao ’s fa ther’s m en tal h ea lth il lnes s are “ p r o b a b l yn o twh a tt h e yc l a i m t o b e . ” J A 2 3 2 - 3 6 . T h e Re p o r ta d v i s e d t h a tt h e s e t wo d o c u m e n ts w e re c o n sis ten t w ith n u m e ro u s o th e r d o c u m e n ts th a t D H S h a s e x a m in e d in ot hercas es and bot h document s appea r ed t o have be en pr epar ed byt he s ame sour ce a nd w er e gi ven an a r t i fi ci al aged l ook byus e of a br ow ni s h l i qui d. J A 393. T he I J w as per s uaded byt he D H S E xami ner ’ s r epor tand t es t i m onyand found that t he t hr ee doc um ent s G ao s ubm i t t ed t o cor r obor at e hi s s t or yw er e pr obabl ynotl egi t i m at e, and he ha d notadequa t el ycor r obor at ed hi s cl ai m . J A 55- 56, 60- 64. I n hi s appea l t o t he B I A , G ao di d notchal l enge thi s bas i s forhi s adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng. T hus , G ao fa i l ed to e x h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a s to h is la c k o f c re d ib ili tyb a se d o n h is s ubm i s s i on of t hes e document s , and w e have no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t hi s as pectof t he IJ’ s d e c isio n . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ); B onhom etr e v. G onz al es , 4 1 4 F . 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B yitse lf

, this u n re v iew a b le f

in d in g is s u f

f icie n t to su p p o rt th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty d e c is io n a n d to d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . S e e , e . g . , Ma t t e ro f O- D- , 21 I & N D ec. 1079, 1083 ( B I A 1998) ( hol di ng t hatpr es ent at i on of count er fei t ed document s , “i n t he (c o n tin u e d ...) 4 

### II. O ur rev iewo f

th e reco rdlead s u s to co n clu d e th at sub stan tial ev id en ce sup p o rts th e adv erse cred ib ility

f in d in g s. F irst, G ao sub m ittedun auth en ticated(p ro b ab ly fr audul e nt ) doc um e nt s t o c orr obor at e hi s c l a i m that he wa s aFa l un Gong pr a c t i t i one r and that his father had been ho spit al iz ed. Second , there were disc repancie s between Gao’s 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 abs ence of an e xpl anat i on r egar di ng s uch pr es ent at i on, cr eat es s er i ous doubt s r egar di ng th e [ a p p lica n t’s] o v e ra ll cre d ib ili ty .”); Si ew e v. G onz al es , 4 8 0 F . 3 d 1 6 0 , 1 7 0 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (“ In th e im m ig ra tio n c o n tex t . . . a s in g le f a lse d o c u m e n t . . . m a y(if a ttribu tab le to t he pet i t i oner ) i nfec tt he bal ance of t he al i en’ s uncor r obor at ed orunaut hent i cat ed ev iden ce . ”). 5 

### t e s t i m ony and wr i tt e n a s yl um

s t at e m e nt

about whe the r the pol i c e we r e c ont i nui ng t o l ook for hi m , a s we l la s adi s c r e panc y wi th al e tt e r

wr i tt e n by

hi s fathe r

on that poi nt . Thi r d, G ao g av e in co n sisten t testim o ny ab o ut w h enan dw h ere h e p racticedF alunG o n g in C h in a. F in ally , G ao ’s testim o ny th at h is m o th er w as arrestedw as n o t p lau sib le sin ce h is o w nw itn ess, w h o liv edinth e U n itedS tates an dtestif iedo nG ao ’s b eh alf

, an dw h o se hus band wa s ar e l at i ve of Ga o’ s m othe r , kne w nothi ng about the a l l e ge d arr e s t

or d isap p earan ce. Abs e nt c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony , on thi s r e c or d, Ga o c annot s us t a i n hi s bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng that

he qua l i fi e s a s ar e fuge e . Si nc e s ubs t ant i a le vi de nc e s upport s the a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty

de t e rm i nat i ons , we a gr e e that he ha s not

e s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i ty

for r e l i e f f r om r e m ov a landwe wi l lthe r e fo r e de ny the pe t i t i onfo r

r e vi e w.