# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 31 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ji an He Zhan g; Ro ng Lin

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er s

v.

Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of Un it ed Sta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 25 , 20 13
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 11 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ji an He Zha ng an d he r hu sb an d, Ro ng Lin

, are na ti ve s of Ch an gl e Ci ty, Fu jian 1

Pro vi nc e of

th e Peo pl e’s Rep ub li c of Ch in a an d pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w o f th e Bo ard of

Lin ’s cas e was co ns ol id at ed wit h Zha ng ’s pe ti ti on , an d he so le ly pa rti ci pa te s 1

in th is cas e as a de riv at iv e be ne fic ia ry o f Zha ng ’s pe ti ti on

. Thu s, we pr ov id e no

se pa rat e an al y si s fo r Ro ng Lin

.Im

m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) or de r de nyin g th ei r ap pl ic at io ns fo r as y lu m , wit hh ol di ng

of rem ov al , and rel ie f un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e. Afte r car efu l re vi ew,

we co nc lu de th e Im

m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (IJ ) ad ve rs e cred ib il it y fin di ng s, ad op te d by th e BIA, are no t su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce in th e reco rd

. W e th eref or e gr an t th e

pe ti ti on for rev ie w and rem an d t he cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

I.

Zha ng is a 38 -y ear- ol d m ot he r of two ch il dr en

. Af te r en te rin g th e Uni te d

St at es in Decem

be r of 19 98

, Zha ng su bm it te d an ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m , cl ai m ing tha t

whi le in Ch in a, go ve rn m en t fam il y -p la nn in g of fic ia ls fo rced he r to ab or t he r se co nd

pr eg na nc y pu rs ua nt to Ch in a’s on e

- c h i l d p o li cy

. Sh e al so cl ai m ed th at if m ad e to

ret ur n to Ch in a, sh e wou ld en du re fu rth er pe rs ecu ti on

. The Imm ig rat io n an d

Natu ralizat io n Serv ic e as y lu m of fic e de ni ed th e ap pl ic at io n, an d th e cas e was refe rred

to Im m ig r a t i o n Co ur t. The IJ de ni ed Zha ng ’s as y lu m ap pl ic at io n, an d th e BIA 2

di sm is se d Zha ng ’s su bs eq ue nt ap pe al

. Pet it io ne rs th en so ug ht rev ie w in th e Seco nd

Ci rcu it Co ur t of App eal s, an d, in a St ip ul a t i o n an d Ord er, th e Seco nd Ci rcu it

rem an de d th e reco rd fo r th e BIA to co ns id er whe th er th e st at em en ts on th e Not ic e to App eal were su ffi ci en tl y de ta il ed

. Alt ho u gh de te rm in in g th at th e st at em en ts were

su ffi ci en t, th e BIA rem an de d th e cas e fo r a ne w h e a r i n g du e to th e IJ ’s fai lu re to

ren de r an ad eq ua te de ci si on as to Zha ng ’s cl ai m th at sh e ha d a well -fo un de d fear of

fu tu re pe rs ecu ti o n

. F ol lo win g th e rem an d, a m ot io n to ch an ge ve nu e to th e juri sd ic ti on of t he Eig ht h C irc ui t was fil ed an d g ran te d.

At th e ne w he ari ng , Zha ng te st ifi ed th at aft er she bo re a so n in 19 91

, Ch in a’s

fam il y -p la nn in g offi ci al s forc ed he r to ha ve an in tra ut eri ne de vi ce (IUD) im pl an te d

Befo re th e de ni al of th e ap pl ic at io n, th e Dep art m en t of Hom el a n d S e c u rit y , 2

th ro ug h a su pe rv is or y as y lu m of fic er, is su ed a Not ic e to App ear ch arg in g Zha ng wit h

rem ov ab il it y

pu rs ua nt to 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (A)(i ).

-2

-to pr ev en t fu rth er pr eg na nc y

. Zha ng ev en tu al ly ha d t he de vi ce rem ov ed an d

di sc on ti nu ed th e req ui red IUD ch eck -u ps

. Sh e te st ifi ed th at sh e be cam e pr eg na nt in

Feb ru ary of 19 93 an d th at he r hu sb an d, Lin

, fle d fro m Ch in a on Apr il 3, 19 93 fo r fear

th at t h e s t a t e w o u ld co m pe l hi s st eri li zat io n. On th e ni gh t of Apr il 15

, 19 93

,
go ve rn m en t fam il y -p la nn in g of fic ia ls rem ov ed Zha ng fro m he r ho m e, arre st ed he r fo r
vi ol at in g th e on e-ch il d po li cy , an d fo rced he r to un de rg o an ab or ti on at th e Ji n Fen g

Hos pi ta l in Fu

jian Pro vi nc e. Zhan g t es ti fie d t ha t afte r th e pr oc ed ur e, sh e req ue st ed

e v i d e n c e of th e fo rced ab or ti on an d a nu rs e pr ov id ed he r wit h a ph ot og rap h of t h e
ab or te d fet us

. Zha ng a l so rece iv ed an ou tp at ie nt reco rd req ui rin g he r to un de rg o a

se co nd IUD im

pl an ta ti on on e m on th aft er t he ab or ti on

.

Afte r th e se co nd IUD im

pl an ta ti on , Zha ng de ci de d to joi n her hu sb an d in th e
Uni te d St at es du e to Ch in a’s pr oh ib it io n ag ai ns t he r gi vi ng bi rth to an ot he r ch il d

whi le li vi ng in Ch in a. Zha ng te st ifi ed th at aft er relo cat in g to th e Uni te d Stat es , sh e

ha d t he sec on d IUD re m ov ed an d l at er g av e b irt h t o a da ug ht er.

In su pp or t of he r as y lu m

ap pl ic at io n, Zh an g s ub m it te d t he ph ot og rap h of th e
ab or t e d f e t u s , an of

fic ia l Ji n Fen g Hos pi ta l ou tp at ie nt reco rd co nf irming Zha ng ’s

ab or ti on an d th e m an da to ry se co nd IUD im pl an ta ti on , an d le tt ers fro m he r fri en ds an d

fam il y m em

be rs at te st in g to Zha ng ’s fo rced ab or ti on

. Zha ng al so su bm it te d th e U.S.

St at e Dep art m en t’s Pro fil e of Asylum an d Co u n t r y Co nd it io ns 20 07 rep or t

refe ren ci ng th e Fu

jian Pro vi nc ia l Bi rth Pl an ni ng Co m m it te e’s ack no wled gm en t “ th at

du rin g th e 19 80 s an d earl y 19 90 s th ere were is ol at ed cas es of fo rced ab or ti on an d

st eri li zat io n.” A.R. 10 4. The rep or t al so no te d a fo rm er bi rth -p la nn in g of fic er’s

te st im on y be fo re t he Uni te d St at es Hou se of Rep res en ta ti ve s th at in vo lu nt ary
ab or ti on s wer e p erfo rm ed as l at e as 19 98 . Id.

A t t he co nc lu si on of th e se co nd he a r i n g , t h e I J f o u n d t h a t Zh a n g l a c k e d

cred ib il it y , an d acco rd in gl y , th at sh e ha d fai le d to es ta bl is h pr oo f of pa st pe rs ecu ti on

. The IJ ou tl in ed se ve n im

pl au si bi li ti es un de rm in in g Zha ng ’s te st im on y , on ly th ree of

-3

-whi ch were ex pr es sl y ad op te d by th e BIA an d are rev ie wab le by th is co ur t. Fo fan ah

v. Gon zal es , 44 7 F.3d 10 37

, 10 40 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Fi rs t, the IJ fo un d it im pl au si bl e

th at Zha ng wou ld req ue st a ph ot og rap h of h er ab or te d fe tu s af te r th e al le ge d fo rced

ab or ti on . Seco nd , t he IJ no te d th at “ th e ho us eh ol d reg is te r was is su ed on Apri l 1 5,

19 93

, by co in ci de nc e th e ve ry sa m e da y th e al le ge d fo rced ab or ti on to ok pl ace.” 3

Thi rd

, th e IJ no te d th at Zha ng su bm it te d an or ig in al le tt er al le g ed ly writ te n by he r
si st er to th e IJ da te d Nov em be r 18

, 20 09 th at di d no t sh ow fol d li ne s to be ex pe ct ed

if i t was in de ed m ai le d i n t he acco m pa nyin g e nv el op e.

The BIA affirm ed th e IJ ’s ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n relying so le ly on

th e th ree area s of im

pl au si bi li ti es an d ag reed th at Zha n g f a i le d to pr ov e pa st

pe rs ecu ti on

. Zha ng an d Lin no w pe ti ti on th is co ur t fo r rev ie w. W e ac k no wled ge 4

th at Pet it io ne rs rai se se ve ral is su es on a p pe al

, bu t we li m it ou r di sc us si on to th e
cri ti cal ad ve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n.

II.

“ W e rev ie w a de ni al of as y lu m fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n an d ap pl y th e de fere nt ia l

su bs ta nt ia l evi de nc e st an da rd in ev al ua ti ng th e [BIA’s] fact ua l fin di ng s.” Brac ic v.
Hol de r, 60 3 F.3d 10 27

, 10 34 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ Onl y th e BIA ord er is su bjec t to ou r

A ho us eh ol d reg is te r is an of fic ia l reco rd is su ed as pa rt of Ch in a’s ho us eh ol d 3

reg is tra ti on syste m th at “ do cu m en ts no t on ly th e le gi ti m at e res id en ce of a pe rs on

— di ffer en ti at in g ru ral an d ur ba n res id en ts — bu t al so th e al lo cat io n of va rio us se rv ic es ,
su ch as f oo d a ss is ta nc e an d s ch oo li ng .” A.R. 10 9. If a n i nd iv id ua l i s un m arri ed or
st il l liv in g with hi s or her pare nt s, he or sh e m ay no t h av e a reg is tra ti on bo ok le t bu t

m ay be in cl ud ed on th e h ead of h ou se ho ld ’s reg is tra ti on . A.R. 11 0.

The BIA al so affi rm ed th e IJ ’s de te rm in at io n th at Zha ng fai le d to es ta bl is h a 4

well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on

. Bec au se we fin d th e reas on s su pp or ti ng th e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n in su ffi ci en t, we ne ed no t ad dr es s th e is su e of well -fo un de d
fear

.

-4

-rev ie w, in cl ud in g th e IJ ’s fin di ng s an d reas on in g to th e ex te nt t h e y w e r e e xp res sl y

ad op te d by th e BIA.” Fo fan ah

, 44 7 F.3 d a t 10 40

. The IJ ’s “ fin di ng s of fact are

co nc lu si ve un le ss an y reas on ab le ad jud ic at or wou ld be co m

pe ll ed to co nc lu de to th e

co nt rary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2 (b )(4 )(B)

.

Und er th e Im

m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act, th e A t to rn ey Gen eral m ay gr an t

as y lu m to an y a l i e n who is a “ refu ge e.” 8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 ). “ A ‘refug ee’ is an

al ie n un wil li ng to ret ur n t o h e r h o me co un try ‘becau se of pe rs ecu ti on or a well

fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of race , rel ig io n, na ti on al it y , m em be rs hi p in

a pa rti cu la r so ci al gr ou p, or po li ti cal op in io n.’” Zhe ng v. Gon zal es , 41 5 F. 3d 95 5,

95 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) ( q u o t in g 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A)). “ The te rm , ‘refug ee,’

in cl ud es ‘a pe rs on who ha s be en fo rced to ab or t a pr eg na nc y or to un de rg o

in v o l u n t ary st eri li zat io n.’” Yan g v. Gon zal es , 42 7 F.3 d 11 17

, 11 20 -2 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 ) (q uo ti ng 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(B) ). Cred ib le te st im on y is req ui red to carr y

pe ti ti on er’s bu rd en of p r o o f t o s h ow th is pe r se gr ou nd of as y lu m

. See Si ng h v.

Gon zal es , 49 5 F.3 d 55 3, 55 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (“ W it h o ut a fin di ng of cred ib le

te st i mo n y t o de m on st rat e pa st pe rs ecu ti on

. . . t he as y lu m cl ai m m us t fai l.”)

. If th e

ap pl ic an t es ta bl is he s pa st pe rs ecu ti on , he or sh e is “ pr e s u med to po ss es s a well

fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on an d t he bu rd en sh ift s t o t he go ve rn m en t t o s ho w

. . . th at co nd it io ns in th e ap pl ic an t’s co un try ha ve ch an ge d to su ch an ex te nt th at th e

ap pl ic an t no lo ng er has a well fo un de d fear o f be in g per se cu te d if he or sh e were to

ret ur n.” Hasa ll a v . Ash cro ft, 3 67 F.3d 79 9, 8 03 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4)

.

Zha ng arg ue s th at th e BIA erre d by ad op ti ng th e IJ ’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n

an d di sc red it in g he r cl ai m of pa st pe rs ecu ti on in th e fo rm of a fo rced ab or ti on

. Zha ng

m ai nt ai ns th at th e IJ ’s cred ib il it y fin di ng s are no t su pp or te d by t h e r eco rd an d

sp eci fic al ly co nt en ds th at th e IJ ig no red rel ev an t ev id en c e an d en ga ge d in

im pe rm is si bl e sp ecu la ti on . W e ag ree.

-5

-Alt ho ug h we ge ne ral ly de fer to th e IJ ’s cred ib il it y fin di ng s, o u r de fere nc e is

res tra in ed whe n th e IJ ’s ex pr es se d reas on s refl ect im pr op er bi as or im

pe rm is si bl e

sp ecu la ti on

. See Ch en v. Mu ka se y , 51 0 F.3 d 79 7, 80 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). It is no t

en ou gh th at th e IJ pr ov id e sp eci fic reas on s fo r di sb el ie vi ng th e ap pl ic an t’s te st im on y , bu t th os e reas on s m

us t al so be co nv in ci ng an d su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. Ons on go v.

Gon zal es , 45 7 F.3 d 84 9, 85 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ); se e al so Sh ah in aj v. Gon zal es , 48 1 F.3 d

10 27

, 10 29 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). W e co nc lu de th at th e reas on s u n d e r l y in g Zha ng ’s

ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n are in ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai ne d an d un su pp or te d by th e

reco rd

.

W e fir st reject as un su pp or te d by th e reco rd an d co m pl et el y sp ecu la ti ve th e IJ ’s

fin di ng th at it is im

pl au si bl e th at Zh a n g wou ld req ue st a ph ot og rap h of th e ab or te d

fet us

. In fact

, Zha ng di d no t so te st ify. In st ead

, sh e te st ifi ed th at sh e de m an de d th at

th e m ed ic al pe rs on ne l “ gi ve [h er] ev id en ce” of th e ab or ti o n so th at he r hu sb an d

w o u ld kn ow wha t ha d oc cu rred

. A.R. 25 8. In res po ns e, a nu rs e pr ov id e d h e r t h e ph ot og rap h.

Als o u n s u p p or te d is th e fin di ng th at it is im pl au si bl e th at “ le ad res po nd en t’s

ho us eh ol d re gi st er wo ul d b e is su ed on th e sa m e da y as he r al le ge d a bo rti on .” A.R.

4. Zha ng su bm it t e d i n t o e v id en ce an ou tp at ie nt reco rd is su ed by th e Ji n Fen g

Hos pi ta l, co nf

irming th at th e ab or ti on oc cu rred on Apr il 1 5, 19 93

. The IJ di d no t

ad d r e ss th is do cu m en t whe n co ns id eri ng Zha ng ’s te st im on y rel at in g to he r fo rced

ab or ti on no r di d th e IJ pr ov id e an y reas on s to di sc red it th e do cu m en t’s au th en ti ci ty.

Thu s, th e IJ fin di ng th at it is im pl au si bl e th at th e two ev en ts wou ld oc cu r on th e sa m e
da y is un ex pl ai ne d, un su pp or te d by no ti ce of an y fact s ou ts id e of th e reco rd or by an y
refe ren ce to th e reco rd it se lf, an d “ be y on d or di na ry jud ic ia l co m pe te nc e.” Lin v. U.S.
Dep ’t of J us ti ce, 4 53 F.3d 99 , 11 1 (2 d C ir. 2 00 6)

.

Fi na ll y , th e un fo ld ed le tt er do es no t un de rm in e Zha ng ’s te st im on y rel at in g to

he r fo rced ab or ti on

. Alt ho ug h th e le tt er re q u e s ts th at th e IJ rev ie w th e do cu m en ts

-6

-su pp li ed in fav or of Zh an g a nd Lin ’s asylum pe ti ti on , th e le tt er m ak es no refe ren ce

to th e Zha ng ’s fo rced ab or ti on

. Thu s, th e in co ns is te nc y , if an y , is m in or , an d “ m in or

in co ns is te nc ie s an d om is si on s wil l no t su pp or t an ad ve rs e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n.”

Ons on go , 45 7 F .3d at 85 3 (q uo ti ng Ja ll oh v. Gon zal es , 4 23 F.3 d 89 4, 89 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 )).

Not ab ly, th e reco rd in cl ud es ot he r le tt ers , on e fro m he r fat he r an d on e fro m he r

in -la ws, bo th ack no wled gi ng Zha ng ’s fo rced ab or ti on

. The B I A n ei th er ad dr es se d

no r di sc red it ed th es e le tt ers , an d we fin d no reas on to ig no re the m no w. There fo re,

ev en as su m in g th at th e IJ rig ht fu ll y reject ed th e Nov em be r 18

, 20 09 le tt er, ot he r
le tt ers were av ai la bl e to su pp or t Zh an g’s t es ti m on y ab ou t h er fo rced ab or ti on

. 5

III.

In li gh t of th e ab ov e co nc ern s, w e ho ld th at th e ad ve rs e cred ib il it y
de te rm in at io n was no t su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en c e in th e reco rd

. The IJ

en ga ge d in im

pe rm issib le sp ecu la ti on an d im pr op erl y re lie d on a m ino r inc onsi ste nc y

. As su ch

, th e BIA erre d in affi rm in g th e IJ ’s de ci si on th at Zha ng di d no t es ta bl is h pa st

W hi le we m ak e no de te rm in at io n reg ard in g Z ha ng’ s cr ed ib il it y , we em

ph as iz e 5

th e ne ed f

o r t h e I J to fu ll y co ns id er th e reco rd

. Zha ng ha s su bm it te d of fic ia l
do cu m en ta ti on fro m th e ho sp it al th at co nf irms th e ab or ti on

. Zha ng al so pr es en te d an of fic ia l go ve rn m en t rep or t whi ch co nt ai ns ev id en ce th at fo rced a b o r t io ns were in

e f fect du rin g th e ti m e pe rio d Zha ng cl ai m s to ha ve be en fo rced to un de rg o a n ab or ti on

. The rep or t als o in cl ud es te st im on y th at in vo lu nt ary ab or ti on s oc cu rred as la te as 19 98

. As we ha ve st at ed be fo re, “ pe ti ti on ers can no t be e x pe ct ed to ge t

su bs ta nt ia l do cu m en ta ti on fro m th ei r pe rs ecu to rs .” Om bo ng i v. Gon zal es , 41 7 F.3 d
82 3, 82 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Acco rd in gl y , “ te st im on y of th e ap pl ic an t, if cred ib le

, m ay be su f f i c i e nt to su st ai n th e bu rd en of pr oo f wit ho ut co rro bo rat io n.” 8 C.F.R. §
20 8.1 3( a). Howev er, in th is cas e, we do ha ve co rro bo rat in g do cu m en ts pr es en te d by
th e Pet it io ne rs . W e b el ie ve th es e do cu m en ts pr ov id e su pp or t t o Zh an g’s t es ti m on y rel at in g t o h er fo rced ab or ti on an d s ho ul d b e co ns id ered on rem an d.

-7

-pe rs ecu ti on

. W e gr an t Zhan g’s pet it io n fo r rev ie w an d rem an d th is cas e to th e BIA

fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs in acco rd an ce wi th th is op in io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-