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 6-17-2010 

# D a bin Liu 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 . 09-3859

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 " D a b in L iu v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1141. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/11411 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. 09- 3859

___________ DAB I N L I U, 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 oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy ( A gencyN o. A 094- 048- 585)

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

J une 17, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

(O p inion fil ed : Jun e 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

D ab in L iu p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f a fin al rem o v al ord er e n tered b ythe B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.2 L i u, age tw entyei ght , i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of C hi na. I n 2002, he g rad u ated fro m S ichu an U n iversity , an d fro m 2 0 0 3 to 2 0 0 5 h e stu d ied library m anage m enti n Par i s , Fr ance . I n J une 2005, r atherthan r eturn t o C hi na, L i u ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on a t our i s tvi s a. H e over s t ay ed the vi s a and f i l ed an I - 589 appl i cat i on for as y l um i n J une 2006. I n pr ocee di ngs befor e an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , L i u conce ded r emovabi l i tyforover s t ay i ng, and he pur s ued as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) r el i ef. L i u cl ai m s that , s hor t l yaft erent er i ng the U n ited S tate s, h e jo in e d th e C h in a D e m o c ra c yP a rty(“ C D P ” ), w h ich se e k s to p ro m o te d em o cra cyin C h ina a n d o p p o ses th e ru li n g C o m m u n istP arty . L iu testi fied b ef o re the IJ th a t h e p a rticip a ted in ten o r m o re p ro tes ts o u tsid e th e o f f ice o f C h in a ’s C o n su l G e n e ra l in N ew Y or k, w r ot e fi ve art i cl es forthe C D P’ s w ebs i t e, pas s ed outfl y er s i n the s tr eet , and a t t e n d e d me e t i n g s . He c l a i ms t o f e a rf u tu r e p e r s e c u t i o n i n Ch i n a d u e t o h i s CD P act i vit i es i n the U nit ed S t at es.

T he I J r ej ect ed the cr edi bi l i tyof Li u’ s t es t i m ony . A m ong otherthi ngs , t he IJ o b se rv e d th a t, i n th e I-5 8 9 a p p lica tio n , L iu h a d sta ted th a t h e re c ru ited a w o m a n in C h ina, T ing Z h ao , to join the C D P , an d that the C h ines e g o v ern m en t had learn ed o f L iu’s C D P m ember s hi p byarr es t i ng Z hao and pr es s ur i ng hert o i dent i fyL i u. T he I J not ed that L i u m ade no ment i on i n hi s di r ectt es t i m onyatthe mer i t s hear i ng of havi ng r ecrui t ed Z hao, of the C hi nes e author i t i es havi ng l earned of hi s C D P m ember s hi p thr ough Z hao, or o f o f f ic ia ls in C h in a h a v in g v is ite d h is p a re n ts ’ h o m e a f te r l e a rn in g o f

h is C D P a c tiv itie s .T h e e x c lu d e d e v id e n c e in c lu d e d L iu ’s o rig in a l p a ss p o rt, v a rio u s C D P m e m b e rsh ip 1 m a ter ials , inte rn e t ar ticle s w ith th e ir w e b a d d re ss e s, a n d tes tim o n yf ro m a w itn e ss to veri fyL i u’s C D P m em bershi p an d acti vit i es. T he I J ’ s D ocketC ontr ol O r derpr ovi ded that“[a ] nydocumentfi l ed af t er[O ct ober 2 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 ] m ust be accom pani ed by a m ot i on t o enl arge deadl i ne and w ri t t en exp l anat i on o f

w h yth e d o c u m e n t w a s n o t f iled in tim e .” A .R . at 5 4 5 (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal). 3 B eca us e Li u negl ect ed t o m ent i on thi s “ce nt erpi ece ” of hi s as y l um cl ai m , and i n l i ghtof addi t i onal i ncons i s t enci es thatthe I J not ed, r el i ef w as deni ed.

T he B I A aff

i r m ed the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, ci t i ng s ever al i ncons i s t enci es i n L i u’ s t es t i m ony , and thus aff i r m ed the deni al of as y l um and w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l. T h e B IA a lso re jec ted L iu ’s c h a llen g e to th e e x c lu sio n o f c e rta in document s and t es t i m onythatL i u had s oughtt o i ntr oduce a thi s A pr i l 2008 hear i ng. T he 1 B IA n o ted th a t th e IJ h a d se t an O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , d e a d lin e f o r th e su b m iss io n o f

th is evi dence , and thatL i u had fa i l ed t o s eek a n ext ens i on of t i m e ort o s how good caus e for hi s l at e fi l i ng. T he B I A al s o aff i r m ed the deni al of C A T r el i ef. L i u t i m el yfi l ed a 2 p e tit io n f o r re v iew in th is C o u rt. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) . W e r evi ew agenc y fac tual fi ndi ngs , i ncl udi ng an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, underthe def er ent i al s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s t a n d a r d . Bu t tv . Go n z a l e s , 4 2 9 F . 3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . An adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng m us tbe uphel d unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be co m p ell ed to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ” B erisha j v. A sh cro ft, 3 7 8 F . 3 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).4 T he R E A L I D A ct , w hi ch the B I A pr oper l yappl i ed her e, pr ovi des thatt he I J , aft er“[c ] ons i der i ng the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , and al l r el evantfac t or s , ” may bas e an a dver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on

on the demeanor , candor , orr es pons i venes s of the appl i cant orw i tnes s , the i nher entpl aus i bi l i tyof the appl i cant ’ s or w i tnes s ’ s acc ount , the cons i s t encybetw een the appl i cant ’ s or w i tnes s ’ s w r i t t en and or al s t at ement s ( w heneve rm ade a nd w hetherornotunderoath, and cons i der i ng the ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch the s t at ement s w er e made) , the i nt ernal cons i s t encyof ea ch s uch s t at ement , the cons i s t encyof s uch s t at ement s w i th otherevi dence of r ecor d ( i ncl udi ng the r eport s of the D epart m entof St at e on countrycondi t i ons ) , and anyi nacc ur aci es orfal s ehoods i n s uch s t at ement s , w i thout r egar d t o w hetheran i ncons i s t ency , i nacc ur acy , orfal s ehood goes t o t he hea r tof the appl i cant ’ s cl ai m , oranyother relev an t fac tor. 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(B )(i ii ).

W e f in d su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on her e. T he ce ntr al fai l i ng i dent i fi ed bythe B I A w as the di s cr epanc y betw een Li u’ s di r ectt es t i m onyand hi s I - 589 s t at ement . A s the B I A obs erved, “the in c o n sis ten c ies in c lu d e d [ L iu ]’s f a ilu re to in d ica te o n d ire c t ex a m in a tio n th a t h is m e m b e r s h i p i n th e o p p o s i t i o n p a r ty h a d b e e n d i s c l o s e d t o g o v e rn m e n ta u th o r i t i e s b y a fr i end he r ecrui t ed i nt o the party . ” A . R . at4. I n hi s I - 589 s t at ement , L i u had s t at ed that the “Chi na comm uni s tgovernm enthad di s cover ed the fa ctthatI j oi ned C D P fr om T i ng Z hao . . . anotherfemal e mem berr ecrui t ed bym e. ” I d. at456. W hi l e Li u t es t i fi ed on di r ectexami nat i on thatC hi nes e off i ci al s beca m e aw ar e of hi s C D P act i vi t i es aft er5

i nt err ogat i ng hi s par ent s and, on cr os s - exami nat i on, he ac know l edged thathe had convi nced f

r i ends i n C hi na t o j oi n t he C D P, “w hen conf r ont ed bythe [I J ] thathi s cl ai m of hi s par ent s di s cl os i ng hi s partym ember s hi p w as i ncons i s t entw i th hi s as y l um appl i cat i on thats t at ed hi s fr i end had made thi s di s cl os ur e, [Li u] r efus ed t o acknow l edge the inco n sist en t t esti m o n y . ” Id . at 4. T h is i n co n sist en cy , as th e B IA n o ted, go es to the h ea rt of Li u’ s as y l um appl i cat i on beca us e i tw as the r eas on ci t ed i n the I - 589 appl i cat i on for L i u’ s fea rof r eturni ng t o C hi na.

T h e B IA n o ted f

u rth er inc o n sist en cies a n d o m issi o n s, inclu d ing L iu’s “c lai m that h e f

ree lytal k ed to ind ividu als i n C h ina o n the telep h o n e a n d h is pa rty ’s i nt ernets i t e w as r eadi l yavai l abl e i n C hi na, butcoul d notobt ai n corr obor at i ve evi dence of h is f rie n d ’s o r p a re n ts’ in ter ro g a tio n a s th e C h in e se a u th o rities c lo se lym o n ito re d th e m a il and i nt ernets i t es . ” I d. at4- 5. I n addi t i on, L i u’ s “appl i cat i on cl ai m ed thatcr i m i nal c h a rg e s h a d b e e n f

iled a g a in st h im in C h in a , b u t h e d e n ied th is c laim a t th e h e a rin g in A p ril 2 0 0 8 a ss e rtin g th a t su c h c h a rg e s m ig h t b e f iled a g a in st h im if

h e is re tu rn e d to C hi na. ” I d. at5. Fi nal l y , the B I A not ed thatthe I J had r el i ed on Li u’ s “demeanordur i ng the A pr i l 2008 hear i ng w her e he r epea t edl yw as nonr es pons i ve t o ques t i oni ng. ” I d.

W e ca nnotconcl ude on thi s r ecor d thatanyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o fi nd L i u cr edi bl e. L i u ar gues thatthe I J m i s char act er i zed hi s t es t i m ony , and that the a d v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing “w as b ase d o n sp ec u lat ion an d co n jecture an d the IJ’s pr edi s pos i t i on t o fi nd agai ns t[Li u] beca us e of hi s fai l ur e t o compl yw i th hers chedul i ngT he B I A ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on s uppor t s i t s deci s i on t o aff i r m the deni al 3 of as y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval . B eca us e Li u does notar gue hi s C A T cl ai m on thi s appea l , w e dee m thati s s ue w ai ved and do notaddr es s i t . See Li e v. A s hcr oft , 396 F .3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n .1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 6 o r d e r . ” P e t i t i o n e r ’ s Br . a t3 3 . L i u b a s e s th e s e a r g u me n t s , h o we v e r , u p o n h i s o wn rea d ing s o f th e re co rd a n d , p arti cu larl y , u p o n h is ow n v iew as to h o w the v ariou s an sw ers thathe gave t o ques t i ons pos ed atthe mer i t s hear i ng s houl d be i nt erpr et ed. W e mustbe m ind fu l th at, “[ w ]he re the re a re tw o p erm issi b le view s o f th e e v iden ce , the f ac tfi n d er’s c h o i c e b e tw e e n th e m c a n n o tb e c l e a r l y e rr o n e o u s . ” A n d e r s o n v . C i ty o f B e s s e m e rC i ty, N . C . , 470 U . S. 564, 574 ( 1985) . B eca us e the r ecor d fai r l ys uppor t s the B I A ’ s vi ew of L i u’ s t es t i m onyand i t s per cei ved s hor t comi ngs , L i u’ s pr opos ed al t ernat i ve r eadi ngs of the r ecor d ar e i ns uffi ci entt o compel a contr arycr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng. 3

L i u al s o chal l enges the dec i s i on t o excl ude hi s l at e- fi l ed evi dence and the w i tnes s t es t i m onythathe w i s hed t o pr es entt o corr obor at e hi s C D P m ember s hi p and act i vi t i es . See not e 1, s upr a. A n I J i s author i zed t o “s etand ext end t i m e l i m i t s forthe fi l i ng of appl i cat i ons and r el at ed document s , ” and “ [i ] f an a ppl i cat i on ordocumenti s not fi l ed w i thi n t he t i m e s etbythe [I J ] , the opportuni tyt o fi l e thatappl i cat i on ordocument s hal l be dee m ed w ai ved. ” 8 C . F. R . § 1003. 31( c) . C our t s r evi ew the exc l us i on of evi dence underthi s pr ovi s i on forabus e of di s cr et i on. See D edj i v. M ukas ey , 525 F. 3d 187, 191 ( 2d C i r . 2008) . W e di s cern no abus e of di s cr et i on.

A s the B I A expl ai ned atl ength, the I J not ed ata hea r i ng on A ugus t2, 2007,T o the ext entthatL i u couche s hi s ar gum enti n t erm s of a due pr oces s vi ol at i on, he 4 d id n o t exh au st his ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies b ef o re the B IA . C o n seq u en tl y , this C o u rt la c k s ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r a d u e p ro c e s s c h a lle n g e . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )( 1 ). 7 L iu ’s d e sire to p re se n t h is e v id e n c e , an d L iu ’s c o u n se l re q u e ste d a “ c o u p le o f m o n th s” to o b ta in th e e v id e n c e . T h e IJ s e t a d e a d lin e o f O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , w h ic h L iu f a ile d to m e e t. T h e B IA f

o u n d th a t “[ t]h e 3 -m o n th d e a d lin e im p o se d b yth e [ IJ] w a s re a so n a b le to o b tain e v id e n c e th a t w a s in [ L iu ]’ s p o s s e s s io n o r c o u ld b e e a s ily o b ta in e d b y[ L iu ].” A .R . a t 3 . Fur ther , the B I A not ed Li u’ s fai l ur e t o not i fythe I J of anydi ffi cul tyi n obt ai ni ng the evi dence and hi s fai l ur e t o m ove forl at e fi l i ng of the mat er i al s bys how i ng good caus e.

L i u cont ends thatthe r ecor d fai l s t o s uppor tthe B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs , and he ar gues thatthe governm ents uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce f r om hi s l at e fi l i ng. L i u conce des , as he m u st, th a t h e f

a iled to c o m p lyw ith th e IJ’ s d e a d lin e f o r f ili n g , an d th a t h e d id n o t m o v e to enl ar ge the dea dl i ne, buthe ar gues that“the I J ’ s excl us i on of evi dence m us ts t i l l be r eas onabl e underthe ci r cumst ance s [. ] ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r . at24. W e agr ee w i th the 4 governm entthat , even i f Li u coul d s how thathi s evi dence w as i m pr oper l yexcl uded fr om cons i der at i on atthe mer i t s hear i ng, he has nots how n how the admi s s i on of thatevi dence m ig h t h a v e a f

f e c ted th e c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n . A s d isc u ss e d , the a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty f i n d i n g w a s b a s e d o n n u m e r o u s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s a n d s h o r t c o m i n g s i n L i u ’ s t e s t i m o n y, part i cul ar l ythe i ncons i s t encybetw een hi s di r ectt es t i m onyand the I - 589 appl i cat i on on the bas i s forhi s cl ai m ed fe arof r eturni ng t o C hi na. C ons equent l y , gi ven the abs ence of a sh o w in g o f

p re ju d ice to L iu , w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n inaff

i r m i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on t o excl ude Li u’ s l at e- fi l ed evi dence .

F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

8