2010 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 6-2-2010 

# Q i Lin 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 . 09-4045

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_2010

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 2010 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 " Qi L in v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1214. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1214NOT 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- 4045

___________ Q I L IN 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 99 023 507) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay26, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , ST A PL E T O N and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 2, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Qi L i n , a c i t i z e n o f

Ch i n a , a rr i v e d i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n Oc t o b e r2 0 0 5 . He conce ded thathe w as r emovabl e forent er i ng w i thouta val i d entrydocument . See I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i tyAc t( “ I NA” ) § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) [ 8 U. S . C.2

§ 1182( a) ( 7) ( i ) ( I ) ] . L i n appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and forpr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e, cl ai m i ng that , as the s pous e of a w om an w ho had been f or ced t o have I U D s i ns ert ed and unde r go an abort i on, he qual i fi ed as a r efuge e underthe A ct . A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ecor d ( “A . R . ”) , 376- 77. L i n’ s w i fe s ubm i t t ed a w r i t t en s t at ement , expl ai ni ng thats he bec ame pr egnantaft erthe bi r th of herdaught eri n M ayof 2001. O n Sept ember2, 2003, fami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s came t o thei rhous e. D ur i ng a stru g g le to p re v e n t L in ’s w if e f ro m lea v in g , o n e o f

th e o f f icia ls f e ll. A .R . 8 5 , 3 7 7 . L in wa s b l a me d f

o rth e i n c i d e n t , b u th e wa s n o ta rr e s t e d o rc h a r g e d wi th a n yc r i me . A. R. 120. L i n’ s w i fe w as t aken t o t he hos pi t al , w her e an a bor t i on w as per form ed. A . R . 222. L in a lso c laim e d th a t h e h a d to p a ya 1 0 ,0 0 0 R M B f in e , tha t th e g o v e rn m e n t re f u se d to perm i thi m t o have a s econd c hi l d, and thathe fe ar s per s ecut i on beca us e he l eftC hi na i l l egal l y . A . R . 95, 97, 106. H e al s o as s ert ed thathe w as “tr oubl e[d] and har as s [ed] ” by the bi r th contr ol offi ci al s . A . R . 377. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed r el i ef, not i ng thats pous es do not au tom ati ca ll yq u ali fyas re fu g ee s u n d er the A tt o rne yG en era l’ s d ec isi o n in M att er o f J-S -, 24 I . & N . D ec. 520 ( A G 2008) ( s pous e of pe r s on for ced t o under go abort i on or ste riliza tio n is n o t au to m a tica llya re f u g e e u n d e r IN A § 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )). W ith re sp e c t to L in ’s o th e r a lleg a tio n s, th e IJ h e ld th a t th e 1 0 ,0 0 0 R M B f in e d id n o t co n stitu te per s ecut i on, thatthe evi dence di d nots uppor tL i n’ s cl ai m thatthe C hi nes e governm ent w o u l d d e n y a p e r m i tt o h a v e a s e c o n d c h i l d , a n d th a tL i n d i d n o td e p a r tC h i n a i l l e g a l l y.3

O n a p p e a l to th e B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ), L in c o n c e d e d th a t h is w i fe’ s exper i ence s no l ongeraut om at i cal l yqual i fyhi m foras y l um . A . R . 16- 17. I ns t ead, he r eques t ed thatthe B oar d r emand t he mat t ers o he coul d demonstr at e thathe w i l l be p erse cu ted b ase d o n “o ther res ist an ce ” to C h ina’s f am il yp lann ing p o li cies. A . R . 1 2 . In part i cul ar , he al l eged thatthe 10, 000 R M B fi ne and the governm ent ’ s r efus al t o i s s ue a b irth p e rm it co n stitu ted p e rse c u tio n . A .R . 1 3 -1 7 . T h e B IA d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l, c o n c lu d in g th a t L in f

a iled to p re se n t an yn e w e v id e n c e th a t th e f in e a m o u n ted to economi c per s ecut i on orthatthe C hi nes e governm entw i l l pr eventhi m fr om havi ng a s e c o n d c h ild . L in f

ile d a tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o IN A § 2 4 2 [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ]. “[ W ]he n the B IA both adopt s the fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s es s om e of the bas es forthe I J ’ s deci s i on, [thi s C our thas ] author i tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A sh cro ft, 3 7 6 F . 3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h is C o u rtu lt im atelyw il l r ev iew the B IA ’s and I J ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs 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, 228 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . “The [I J ’ s and] B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on w i l l notbe di s turbed u n l e s s ‘ a n yr e a s o n a b l e a d j u d i c a t o rwo u l d b e c o mp e l l e d t o c o n c l u d e t o th e c o n tr a ry . ’ ” Yu v. A t t ’ yG en. , 513 F. 3d 346, 348 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A n appl i cantfor a s y l u m h a s th e b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g th a th e i s u n a b l e o ru n wi l l i n g t o r e tu rn t o h i s h o me country“bec aus e of [ pas t ] per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal4

opi ni on[. ] ” I N A § 101( a) ( 42) ( A ) [8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ] . Per s ecut i on “connot es e x tre m e b e h a v io r, in c lu d in g th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an d e c o n o m ic re stric tio n s s o se v e re th a t th e yc o n stitu te a th re a t to life o r f re e d o m .” A h m e d v . A sh c ro f t, 3 4 1 F .3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). T he s pous es of thos e w ho have be en per s ecut ed bycoer ci ve popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es ar e notaut om at i cal l yel i gi bl e foras y l um . See Li n- Z heng v. A t t ' yG en. , 557 F. 3d 1 4 7 , 1 5 6 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) . Ba s e d o n th e s t a tu t o ryd e f i n i t i o n o f “ r e f u g e e ” i n I NA § 101( a) ( 42) [8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ] , w e conc l uded i n L i n- Z heng thatr efuge e s t atus ext ends onl yt o t he i ndi vi dual w ho had bee n s ubj ect ed t o an i nvol unt aryabort i on or s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e, had bee n per s ecut ed forfai l i ng orr efus i ng t o under go s uch a p ro c e d u re , o r h a d a w e ll-fo u n d e d f e a r o f su c h p e rse c u tio n in th e f u tu re . S e e id . L in re c o g n ize s th is, b u t ar g u e s th a t h e e sta b lish e d p a st p e rse c u tio n b a se d o n h is o p p o sitio n to hi s w i fe’ s abort i on. See i d. at157 ( not i ng thats pous es r emai n el i gi bl e forr el i ef i f they q u a l i f ya s a r e f u g e e u n d e r§ 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ] b a s e d u p o n th e i ro wn per s ecut i on, orw el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on, for“otherr es i s t ance ” t o a coe r ci ve p o p u lat ion co n tr o l pro g ram ). In h is brief, L in claim s tha t he w as b ea ten, bu t th e re co rd cont ai ns no t es t i m onyors t at ements uppor t i ng hi s al l egat i on. H e t es t i fi ed thathe s truggl ed w i th a bi r th contr ol offi ci al w ho had come t o t ake hi s w i fe t o the hos pi t al , and thatthe off

i ci al “tr oubl e[d] and har as s [ed] ” hi m . T hes e i nci dent s s i m pl ydo r i s e t o the le v e l o f p e rs e c u tio n . S e e L ie v . A s h c ro f t, 3 9 6 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).5

I n addi t i on, L i n has fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthe 10, 000 R M B fi ne and the g o v e rn m e n t’s re f

u sa l to iss u e a b irth p e rm it co n stitu te p e rse c u tio n , n o r d id h e sh o w th a t a r emand w as nece s s aryt o devel op s uch evi dence . L i n t es t i fi ed thatthe fi ne w as i m pos ed verbal l yand thathe di d nott ake i ts er i ous l y . A . R . 115; s ee a l s o Y u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 568 F. 3d 1328, 1334 ( 11th C i r . 2009) ( concl udi ng thatpet i t i onerw ho hi d fr om author i t i es w i th hi s w i fe t o avoi d hers t er i l i zat i on di d nots how “otherr es i s t ance ” and thatfi ne w as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on) . W i th r es pectt o the bi r th perm i t , L i n expl ai ned that the lo ca l birth co n tr o l po li cyall o w s a c o u p le t o h av e a sec o n d ch il d fo u r y ea rs af ter a gi r l i s born. A . R . 81. L i n t es t i fi ed thathe appl i ed fors uch a pe r m i t , butexpl ai ned that v ill a g e o f

f icia ls d e n ied h is a p p lica tio n a n d “ k e p t p u tti n g th in g s o f f.” A .R . 9 5 . B u t L in s ugges t ed thathe coul d appl yagai n, not i ng thatthe vi l l age of fi ci al s “gave us [a] w arni ng, ” that“i tw i l l be di ffi cul tt o getthi ngs done w hen I go t o them i n the futur e” a nd th a t “ s o m e tim e s th e yw ill n o t is s u e c e rt if ic a te s .” A .R . 9 5 . G iv e n th is te s tim o n y , a re a so n a b le a d

ju d ica to r w o u ld n o t b e c o m p e lled to c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA in c o rre c tly d eterm ined that “itis spe cu lat ive th at th e g o v ern m en t of the P C R w o u ld d en y[L in] a bi r th perm i tt o have a s econd c hi l d. ” I n s um , s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the det erm i nat i on thatL i n has nots uffe r ed p a st p e rse c u tio n a n d d o e s n o t h a v e a re a so n a b le f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n . B e c a u se L in cannots at i s fythe as y l um s t andar d, he ca nnots at i s fythe more di ffi cul tw i thhol di ng of re m o v a l s ta n d a rd . S e e Z u b e d a v . A s h c ro f t, 3 3 3 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 -7 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).A ddi t i onal l y , ther e i s no evi dence thatL i n had bee n orw oul d be t or tur ed.

F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w .

6