T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T HU I B O WAN G, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 71711 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 569- 340 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 16, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H U G , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e t i t i one rH ui bo W a ng, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of the P e opl e ’ s R e publ i c of C h i n a , s e e k s r e v i e w o f

ad e c i s i o n b yth e B o a r do f I m m i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( B I A) da t e d F e brua ry18, 2005, tha tr e ve r s e d the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( I J ) gr a ntof W a ng’ s appl i c a t i on f

orw i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( C A T ) . P e t i t i one ra l s o s e e ks r e vi e w of as ubs e que ntde c i s i on by 

# FI LED APR05 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

the B IA dat ed A pri l 3, 20 07 , thatup hel d the IJ ’ s orderof re m ov al and d eni ed an ap p lic a tio n to in tr o d u c e a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e . B e c au s e th e p a rtie s a r e f a m ilia rw ith the fa ctual and p roce du ra l hi st ory of thi s c as e, w e r epea ton l y tho se fa ct s nec es sary t o r e s o l v e th e i s s u e s r a i s e do n ap p e a l . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e d e n yW a n g ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w .

“ [ U ] nl e s s the [ B I A ] qua l i f i e s orl i m i t s the r e m a nd f oras pe c i f

i c purpos e , the r e m a n dis e f

f e c tiv e f o rth e s ta te dp u rp o s e a n df o rc o n s id e r a tio n o f

a n ya n da ll m a tt e r s w hi c h the [ I J ] de e m s appr opr i a t e i n the e xe r c i s e of hi s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve d is c r e tio n o rw h ic h a r e b r o u g h t to h is a tte n tio n in c o m p lia n c e w ith th e ap p r o p r ia te re gu l at i on s. ” Ferna ndes v. H older , 619 F . 3d 1069, 1074 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng M at terof P atel , 16 I. & N . D ec . 60 0, 60 1 (B . I. A . 19 78 )) . B ec ause the B IA l i m i t ed th e s c o p e o f

th e r e m a n dh e a r in g to is s u in g a n o r d e ro f r e m o v a l, th e I Jp r o p e r ly d e n ie dW a n g ’s m o tio n to s u b m it a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e . See M ol i na -Cam acho v. A s h c r o ft , 3 9 3 F .3 d9 3 7 , 9 4 0

– 4 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) , overruled by L olon g v. G on zales , 484 F . 3d 1173, 1178 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( e n banc ) . T he B I A ’ s s pe c i f i c c i t e t o Mol i naCam ac ho a t th e e n do f

its d e c is io n in d ic a te dth a t th e I J ’s d is c r e tio n w a s lim ite dto the m i ni s t e r i a l t a s k of

i s s ui ng the r e m ova l or de r . T he I Junde r s t ood thi s a nd p r o c e e d e da c c o r d in g ly . T o th e e x te n t th e r e w a s a n yd o ub t ab o u t th e B I A ’s in te n t, th e B o a r d ’s 2 0 0 7 d e c is io n la idth e q u e s tio n to r e s t.3

T hi s de c i s i on t o l i m i tthe r e m a nd he a r i ng a l s o di d notvi ol a t e a nyof P e t i t i one r ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . D ue pr oc e s s r e qui r e s tha tape t i t i one rbe gi ve n a

“ ful l and fai r heari ng . ” Ca m p o s - Sa n c h ezv . I

NS , 16 4 F . 3d 44 8, 45 0 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) , supers eded by statute as r ec og nize d i n X i u X i a L i n v. Mukasey , 534 F . 3d 16 2, 16 5 (2d C i r. 20 08 ) ( desc ri bi ng ef fe ct s of the R E A L ID A ct ). “ T hi s c ou rthas f o u n dp r e ju d ic e w h e r e a n a lie n ’s r ig h ts a r e v io la te d‘in am a n n e rs o a s p o te n tia lly t o aff ec tthe ou t com e of the proceedi ng s. ’ ” I d. ( c i t i ng U

ni ted States v. C e rda- P e na , 799 F . 2d 1374, 1379 ( 9th C i r . 1986) ) . P e t i t i one rw a s a f f or de d a hear i ng before the IJi n 2 00 3. A s the B IA st at ed, no ne of the addi t i on al evi dence P et i t i on ersoug htt o i ntrodu ce atl at erhear i ng s c as tdo ub ton the 20 03 fi nd i ng that P e titio n e r ’s a d h e r e n c e to F a lu n G o n g c o u ldn o t b e s u b s ta n tia te d . F i na l l y , w e a r e notc om pe l l e d t o r e ve r s e the B I A ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny P et i t i on erw i thh ol di ng of re m ov al and rel i ef un der the C A T . B ec ause P et i t i on er di d notappe a l the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on, w hi c h w e ntt o the he a rtof the pe t i t i on a nd f

orm e d the ba s i s of

the de c i s i ons be l ow , w e m us ta c c e pttha the w a s n o t c r e d ib le ab o u t h is F a lu n G o n g p r a c tic e . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )( 1 ) ( “A c o u rt m a yr e v ie w af

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l o n lyif

. . . th e a lie n h a s e x h au s te da ll a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s a v a ilab le to th e a lie n a s o f r ig h t[ .]” ) ; G u o v . A s h c r o ft , 361 F . 3d 1194, 1199 & n. 1 ( 9th C i r . 2004) . B e c aus e P e t i t i one r ’ s w i thhol di ng of4

re m ov al cl ai m w as supp ort ed by the sam e s t at em ent s and fa ctual as se rt i on s dee m ed no tcr edi bl e i n h i s a sy l um appl i ca t i on , and the re m ai ni ng evi dence i n the re cord d o e s n o t a lte rth a t c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n , W a n g ’s p e titio n is d e n ie d . Se e Far ah v . A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 57 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.