The Honor able Ann A ldrich, United States District J udg e for the Norther n District of Ohio, * sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0644n.06 Filed: August 31, 2007 No. 06-3806 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT X I AO X I NG C HEN , De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt, On Petition for Review fr om the v. B oa rd of I mmi g ratio n App e a ls A L B ER TO R. G ONZAL ES , A TTORN EY G EN ER A L OF THE U

NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA Plaintif f-Appellee

.

______________________________ Be fo re : KE NN E DY an d

C OO K, C i rc u i tJ u d ges ; ALDR I C H, Di s t ri ct J u d ge * KENN EDY, J. Xiao XingChen is a C hinese national who was f ound illega lly

within the United States and thereaf ter re quested withholding of re moval under both the Immigration and Nationality

Act and the Convention Ag ainst Torture. H er r equest for wi thholding of r emoval wa s de nie d b y the imm ig ratio n jud g e , and the B oa rd of I mmi g ra

tio n Ap pe a ls a ff

ir me d the de c isi on . M s. Chen argues that the de cision below is not supported by substantial evi dence . We disag ree , and there fore deny

the petition.

BACK GR OUND On N ov emb er 23 , 1 99 7, Xi ao X in g Che n il legal ly ent ered th e Uni ted S tat es th rou gh J oh n F. Kenne dy I nternational A irport in N ew York City

. Whil e in the United States, she marrie d Yung Guo2

Chen and h ad t wo ch ildren, Eric Chen, born Mar ch 30, 2004, and N icole Chen, born O ctober 12, 2002. J .A. 716-17. Ms. Chen had pr eviously enter ed the c oun t ry i l leg ally on November

3, 1997 throug h L os Ang eles I

nte r n a tiona l Airport and ha d been de ported Nove mber 5, 1997. Af ter de taining Ms. Chen in 2005, the gover nment reinstated its previous removal orde r. Ms. Chen expressed a fea r of beingbeate n while detaine d in China f or illega l e x it a s well as a fea r of beingforc ibly

sterilized fo r h a vin g tw o c hil dr e n w hil e in t he Un ite d St a te s, wh ic h v iol a te s Ch ina ’s on e-c hil d p oli c y . M s. Chen had a

hear i n g befor e an immig ration judg e (I J ) on Mar ch 1, 2006 to deter mine whether

she qualified for

withholding of r emov al. J .A. 985. The immig ration judg e dete rmined that Ms. Chen did not carr

y her bur den of pr oof, and the ref ore de nied her

claim for w ithholding of removal. J .A. 24-27. The Boa

rd of Immigration Appeals (B I A) a ffirme d the immigration judge’ s decision in a per curiam opinion is sued on June 1, 2006. J.A. 4- 5. Ms. Che n now appe als, arguing that the decision was not supported by

substantial evidence

.

AN AL YSI S Ms. Chen asserts on a

ppeal that the de nial of withholding of r emoval wa s not supported by substantial evidence . This circuit re views the BIA’s decision, and when the BIA adopts the I J ’s and only adds some comments, this court re views both as if they jointly const i t u te the dec ision of the BIA. Mapouya v. Gonzales , 487 F.3d 396, 405 (6th Cir. 2007). Ms . Chen reque sted withholding of

remova l under two provisions. The f irst is the I mmigration and Nationality Act (I NA), 8 U.S.C. § 12 31 (b )( 3) (2 00 6) . An a lie n c la imi ngsu c h r e lie f b e ars the burd e n o f p ro vin g “ that it is m or e lik e ly tha n n ot t hat he or sh e wo uld be pe rs e c ute d on ac c ount of ra c e , re lig ion , na tio na lity , me mbe rs hip in

a pa rt ic ula r s oc ia l gr ou

p, or po lit ic a l opin ion up on re mov a l to [his or he r h ome ] co un tr

y .” 8 C. F .R.3

§ 1208.16(b)( 2) (2006)

. T h e s econd is the Convention Aga inst Torture (CAT) , 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (2006). To obtain relief the alien must prove that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if r emoved to the pr oposed country of r em o v al

. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c)(2) (2006). Deter minations under bot h acts a re r eviewe d in the followingmanner : “finding s of fa ct ar e conclusive unle ss any rea sonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the c ontrary ,” and

“ a de c isi on that an a lie n is no t e lig ibl e fo r a dmiss io n to the Un ite d St a te s is c on c lus ive un le ss manifestly

contra ry to law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ), (C) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(e) (1) ( 2006). I. Ms. Chen asserts that the I J ’s dec ision is not supported by substantial e vidence . She argues that sh e pr ov e d th a t sh e de se rv e d w ith ho ldi ngof re mov a l un de r b oth the I

NA and CA T. We e va luate

eac h in turn, and find that the r ecor d does not compel such a conclusion. A. Ms. Chen argues that she pr oved that it wa s “m o re likely than not that [] she would be perse cut e d o n a c c o u n t o f

. . . [h e r ] p o li ti c a l o p in io n u p o n r e mo v a l to [C h in a ]. ” 8 C. F.R. § 1208.16(b)( 2). She alleg es that bec ause she has broke n China’s one-c hild policy by having two children w hile in the United States, she will be forc ibly sterilized by the Chinese g overnme nt upon her r eturn to F ujian Province. To support he r assertion she points to Mr. J ohn Shields Aird’s aff idavit, J .A. 44-623, to the testimony befor e the House Commi ttee on I nternational Relations, J .A. 624-710, to the letters f

rom her husba

nd, her mother, her cousin, and her husband’s c ousin, J .A. 711 (hus b a n d ’ s le tt e r) , 7 1 2 ( mo the r’s letter ), 741 (husba nd’s cousin’s letter ), 751-52 ( cousin’s letter) , and to the Am n es t y I n t er national Report on China, fr om J anuar y throug h Dec ember

2004, J .A. 956. Whil e Ms. Che n h a s ama sse d a lar g e a mou nt o f e vid e nc e , “ any

re a so na ble a dju dic a tor

wo uld [not ]4

be compe lled to conclude” that the I J ’s deter mination was in co rr ec t b ased on this re cord. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B) (2006). The I J was c orre ct in noting that while the ev i d en ce c ompiled by Ms. Chen did prove that fo rc ibl e ste ri lizatio n li ke ly sti ll o c c ur s in

Chi na , a nd e ve n li ke ly

sti ll o c c ur s in

Ms. Che n’ s h ome pr ov inc e of

F uji an, that do e s n ot p ro ve that it is mor e lik e ly tha

n not to ha

pp e n to her . Ms. C he n d id pr ov e that a lth ou g h h e r c hil dr e n a re U. S. c iti zen s, the Chi ne se g ov e rnme nt w ou ld p ro ba bly sti ll

c on sid e r h e r t o b e in vio la tio n of the on e -c hil d poli c y if sh e br ing s h e r c hil dr e n b a c k to Chi na wi th her. J.A. 43, 66-67. S he did not prove, how ever , that the re sult of the violation would be perse cution. Ms. Chen has introduced no evidenc e that she will be treated any differ ently

than any other woman in Fujian w ho has violated the one -child policy , and she ha s not proven that the g ener al treatment is more likely

than not to amount to perse cution. Many source s of evide nce, suc h as the Depa rtment of State’s Profile of Asy lum Cl aims from C hina and Mr. Aird’s aff idavit, indicate that China ’ s o n e - c h il d

p o li c y is u n e v e n ly

e n f o r c e d

. J. A

. 3 7 ( “ Wh a t w e d o k n o w s u g g e s ts th at imp le me ntat i o n[o f

C h i n a ’ s o n e - c h i l d

p o l i c y ] v ar i e s f

r o m p l a c e t o p l a c e . ” ) ; J. A

. 3 7 ( “ [T ]h e b i rt h limit ation policy

is unevenly

enfor ced.” ); J .A. 38 (“ Most observer s believe that the fre quency of [phy sic a l c oe rc ion

to e nf or c e the on e -c hil d po lic y ] i s de c lin ing .” ); J.A. 48 (“ Al tho ug h sin c e the e a rl y 1990s the centr al authorities have tried to a chieve more uniform enfor ceme nt of the rules, it rema ins somewha t u n even.” ); J .A. 51 (“ [S tories told by asylum seeker s] m ay

simply ref lect the lac k of uniformity

in prog ram implementation at the ba sic level, a problem the ce ntral and pr ovincial

a uth or iti e s o ft e n c omp la in a bo ut i n the Ch ine se me dia .” ); J.A. 84 (“ [W]hile c on tr ol [o ve r f e rt ili ty and birth] is l apsing in some place s, in others it has bec ome har sher than e ver.” ); J .A. 648 (“ But enfor ceme nt of this prohibiti on [on fer tilit y and birth] repor

tedly varie s widely

throug hout China.”);5

J.A. 66 2 ( “ Th e imp le me ntatio n o f t he se dif fe re nt f or ms of punis hme nt [f

or vio la tin g the on e -c hil d policy ] has varied in locations throughout Chi n a . . . .”); J.A. 867 (“[Chi na’s ne w 2002 birth] law is i nte nd e d to sta

nd ardi ze t

he imp le me ntatio n o f t

he Go ve rnme nt’ s b ir

th l imi ta tio n p oli c ie s; ho we ve r, e nf

or c e me nt c on tin

ue d to va ry fr om pla c e to pla c e .” ). I nd e e d, the State De pa rtme nt P ro fi le of Asylum Cl aim s , t h e S t ate De partment Repor t on the Human Rig hts Practices of China, and testimony by Mr. Aird indicate that since Ms. Chen is f rom a rura l are a in Fujian Provinc e, J.A. 941, 945, it is m ore likely s h e would only be asse ssed a soc ial compensation fee f or her violation of China’s one-bir

th policy , rathe r than more extreme punishment su ch as tuba l ligation, J.A. 38 (“China’ s family

planning law is most strictly enfor ced in Ha

n Chinese urba

n are as . . . .”); J.A. 40 (“A ccor ding to the F ujian Provincial Fa mily Planning Committ e e (F PFPC), there ha ve bee n no case s of fo rc e d a bo rt ion or ste ri lizatio n in

F uji an in the la st 10 y e ars . . . L oc a l phy sic ians in c on ta c t w ith the U.S. Consulate Gene ral in Gua ng zhou repor

t that they have not seen signs of force d abortions or sterilizations among their patients from F ujian and Guang dong Provinces since the 1980s. . . . Consulate Gene ral off

icer s have f

ound that m an y v i o l at ors of the one -child policy paid fines but [t here was] no evidence of for ced a bort i o n s o r prope rty

confiscation.”); J .A. 41 (“ Families are assessed soc ial compensation f ees if they return to F ujian with mor e than one child afte r havinglived

a br oa d. ” ); J.A. 43 (“ I n F uji an Pr ov inc e , fo r e xamp le , a fa mil y in wh ic h bo th parent s ar e Chi ne se citizens would b e ex pecte d to pay social compe nsation fee s . . . . U.S. diplom ats in China are not

awa re of any cases in which re turnee s from the United States we re f orce d to underg o sterilization proce dures on their

return.” ); J .A. 67 6 (“Popul ation resistanc e also c ontinues, espec ially in rural

areas , mak ing fa

mil y pla nn ingwo rk

dif fi c ult .” ); J.A. 86 7 ( “ Th e on e -c hil d li mit wa s mo re str ic tly6

a pp lie d in c iti e s . . . . I n most ru

ra l ar e a s . . . the po lic y wa s mor e re la xed

. . . . I n r e mot e are a s, lim its often we re not e nforc ed, except on g overnme nt employ ees a nd Party members.” ). The e x perie nce of

Ms. Chen’s family

does not cha

ng e the analy sis. Ms. Chen’s mother wa s ste ri lize d in

19 83 , J.A . 9 32 , a

nd he r c ou sin

wa s st e ri lize d s omet im e be fo re 19 98 , J.A . 7 51 . T he se examples are not r ece nt enoug h to prove that more than half the women in Fujian Province are being sterilized when they have two or m ore children today

. Ms. Chen’s citation to Y ang v. Gonzales , 427 F.3d 1117 ( 8th Cir. 2005) is unavailing

. I n that case , Ms. Wu had five brother s and sisters, and thre e had b ee n fo rcibly

sterilized by

family planning officia ls, and her husba nd, Mr. Yang , had thre e brothers a nd sisters, and two we re f orcibly sterilized. Y

ang , 427 F.3d at 1119. M s . C h en d oes not have a compar able family history ; she has not pr oven that her “fa mily is w ell-known for

violating the family

planning policy , and thus specif ically targ eted by

g overnme nt officials.” See id.

. Additionally , Y

ang was a deter mination based on asy

lum, which requires a subjec tive fea r of perse cution that it objectively rea sonable. 427 F.3d at 1120-21. This case involves a dete rmination based on w ithholding of re moval, which re quires provingit is more likely than not that the applica

nt wi l l b e persecute d, a standa rd which is more stringe nt. Mikhailev itch v. I.N.S. , 1 4 6 F

. 3 d 384, 391 (6th Cir. 1998). I n a dd iti on , the fa c t that Ms . Ch e n’ s hus ba nd is i n h idi ngfr om t

he fa mil y pla nn ingof fi c ia ls do e s n ot p ro ve that she is m or e lik e ly tha n n ot t o b e for cib ly st eri lize d. I n h is l e tte r t o th e I J, Ms. Che n’ s h us b an d s ay s h e i s h i d i n g an d t h a t t h e f a m i l y p l an n i n g o f

f i c i a l s ar e l o o k i n g f

o r h i m to sterilize him, but he does not indicate why he knows they ar e going to steriliz e him, rathe r than

assess a social compensation f ee or perha

ps simply ask for information. See J.A. 71 1; se e als o J .A. 5 n .1 ; c f. J .A. 724 (“Since my husband’s release from prison, he ha s been in hiding far awa y from7

his home town in order to avoid being forcibly sterilized by the C hinese Birth Control Officials. He is f ear ful that he will be sterilized since he has two children.” ). One cannot say that the I J ’s dec ision that Ms. Chen had not proven that she would more likely t h an n o t be forc ibly

sterilized was not supported by

substantial evidence in light of the r ecor d evidenc e; the re cord doe s not compel the opposite conclusion. See I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). B. M s . C h en argues that she pr oved that it was “ more likely than not that [] she would be tortured if r emoved to [China] .” See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(c) (2) ( 2006). She alleg es the same g rounds fo r r e lie f a s argue d a

bo ve , name ly that sh e wi ll b e fo rc ibl y ste ri lize d f

or vio la tin g Chi na ’s on e -c hil d law. She also a lleg es that bec ause she left C hina wit hout permission and there fore broke the law, she will be jailed, interrog ated, and beate n by the C hinese gove rnment upon her return. H er suppor

t for this is t hat China’s police g ener ally eng ag e in phy sical violence ag ainst prisoners, J.A. 67-69, 858, and that her

husband wa s beate n while imprisoned for illeg ally leavingChina, J .A. 711. Ms. Che n’s claim of err or based on her forc ible sterilization alleg ation fails. The I J ’s finding that Ms. Chen did not carr y her bur den of proof is re viewed unde r the same standard a s above; the I J ’s decisio ns ta

n d s “ u n le s s an y

r e a s o n a b le a d ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o mp e ll e d

to c o n c lu d e to the contra ry .” See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(e) (1) ( 2006). B eca use it is the same claim and the same r eview as under the I NA, her claim fa ils under CAT as it did under the I NA ana ly sis above. Ms. Chen’s claim that the I J ’s dec ision that she did not prove it wa s more likely than not that sh e wo uld

be imp ri so ne d and be a te n wh e n re tur ne d a lso fa ils

. Whil e he r hu sb and wa s b e a te n w hil e in de te nti on fo r ille g a lly le a vin g Chi na , J .A . 711 , Ms. Che n’ s cou sin wh o wa s det a ine d for ill e g a lly leavingChina does not asser t that she was b ea t en wh i l e in detention. J .A. 751. Additionally , the8

g ener al information about China’s police forc e eng ag ing in ph y s i ca l ly abusive be havior doe s not

e sta bli sh that it wo uld ha

pp e n to wo me n a s e qu a lly a s me n, or that it g e ne ra lly ha pp e ns to o ve r h a lf those detaine d, or that it is more likely to occur to those who have left t he country illega lly

. J .A. 67- 69, 858. The only

more e stablished pattern f or illeg al exit i s detention and fine s, wh i ch d o not amount to torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (1), ( 2) (2006) . The I J ’s dec ision that Ms. C hen did not prove that it was more likely than not that she would be de tained and be aten in China is supported by substantial evidence ; the rec ord does not compe l a diffe rent c onclusion.

CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we deny the petition.