FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOV 1, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11386 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc yN o. A 98- 113- 628 Q I N L I U , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 1, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P e t i t i one rQ ui n L i u ( “ L i u” ) , ac i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) de c i s i on, a f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de ni a l of

a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd r e l i e f

unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e a nd O the rC rue l , I nhum a ne or D e gr a di ng T r e a tm e ntorP uni s hm e nt( “ C A T ” ) , a nd the B I A ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on to r e m a n d , w h ic h w a s b a s e d o n n e w e v id e n c e o f am a rr ia g e c e rtif

ic a te . L iu a n dh is w if e ,Y u a n S u n , w h o h a d b e e n m a rr ie din atr a d itio n a l c e r e m o n y , w e r e n o t le g a lly m arri ed w hen S un w as subj ec t ed t o a forc i bl e abo rt i on and st er i l i za t i on . S un w as s t e r i l i z e d a f

t e rL i u e s c ape d s t e r i l i z a t i on byf i ght i ng a nd f

l e e i ng f a m i l ypl a nni ng author i t i e s a tthe hos pi t a l . F orthe r e a s ons tha tf ol l ow , w e de nyhi s pe t i t i on f or r e v ie w a n d a f

f irm th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n to r e m a n d . I. O n appe a l , L i u a r gue s tha tthe B I A e xc e e de d i t s s c ope of r e vi e w by char ac t er i zi ng as “ al l eged, ” c on traryt o the IJ ’ s f i nd i ng s: (1) S un ’ s c oerc ed ab o rtio n ; a n d ( 2 ) th e “b e a tin g ” th a t L iu r e c e iv e da t th e h a n d s o f th e f a m ily p la n n in g o f

f ic ia ls . L iu c o n te n d s th a t th e B I A ’s tr e a tm e n t o f th e s e e v e n ts s e r io u s ly u n d e rm in e d h is c a s e . L i u’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe B I A e xc e e de d i t s s c ope of r e vi e w i s m e r i t l e s s . T he B IA ’s re as o n s f

o r d en yin g as ylu m as to th e ab o rtio n claim w er e b as ed o n L iu ’s fa i l ure t o b e partof a l egal m arri age and di d n otdepend on w hether there had b ee n3

a n abort i on, a l l e ge d orothe rw i s e . A l s o, the I Jdi d notm a ke s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs r e g a r d in g ab e a tin g , a n d L iu n e v e rte s tif ie dth a t h e w a s b e a te n . II. L i u ne xta r gue s tha tthe f a c ttha the w a s notl e ga l l ym arr i e d w he n the abort i on a nd s t e r i l i z a t i on of hi s now l e ga l w i f

e oc c urr e d s houl d notba rhi s a s y l um appl i c a t i on be c aus e the B I A ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tal e ga l l yr e c ogni z e d m a rr i a ge dur i ng the r e l e va ntt i m e pe r i od i s r e qui r e d f i nds no s upporti n pr e c e de ntorthe r e g u la tio n s . L iu a s s e rts th a t, b e c au s e th e B I A ’s d e c is io n in th e in s ta n t c a s e is un pu bl i shed and, thu s, no tprec edent i al rul e- m aki ng , i ti s notent i t l ed t o d ef er ence un der Chevr on U

. S. A . , Inc. v. N

aturalR es ou rc es D ef

ense C ou nci l

, Inc. , 4 6 7 U . S. 83 7, 10 4 S . C t . 27 78 (198 4). L i u argues thathi s a ss oci at i on and l at erl egal m a rr i a ge t o hi s w i f

e c ons t i tut e d as i gni f

i c a nta s s oc i a t i on, w hi c h c oul d e s t abl i s h a w el l foun ded fearof future pers ec ut i on , and the B IA ’ s r equi re m entof a l egal m a rr ia g e w a s c o n tr a ryto th is d o c tr in e o f im p u te dp o litic a l o p in io n .

“ [ R ] e vi e w of

the B I A ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on [ of as t a tut e ] i s i nf

orm e d bythe pr i nc i pl e of

de f e r e nc e art i c ul a t e d i n Che v r on . ” Cas t i l lo-A r i as v . U . S. A t t ' y . G e n. , 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 1 9 0 , 1 1 9 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) , ce rt. deni ed 1 2 7 S . C t. 97 7 (20 07 ). U nd er Che v r on , th e r e is atw o - s te p p r o c e s s , lo o k in g to s e e , f ir s t, if c o n g r e s s io n a l p u rp o s e is c le a r . I d. I f C o n g r e s s io n a l in te n t o n a n is s u e is am bi gu ou s or s i l ent , “ a c ou rtm ayno tsubst i tut e i t s ow n con struct i on of a s t atut ory4

prov i si on for are as on abl e i nt erpret at i on m ade by the adm i ni stra t or of an agency. ” I d. ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . I n 1 9 9 6 , th e d e f

in itio n o f “r e f u g e e ” w a s a m e n d e dto in c lu d e th a t: [ A ] pe r s on w ho ha s be e n f or c e d t o abortapr e gna nc yort o unde r go i nvol unt a rys t e r i l i z a t i on, orw ho ha s be e n pe r s e c ut e d f orf a i l ur e or r e f us a l t o unde r go s uc h apr oc e dur e orf orothe rr e s i s t a nc e t o a coer ci ve po pu l at i on control prog ram , shal l be deem ed t o h ave been p ersecu t ed o n acco u n to f p o l i t i cal o p i n i o n , an da p erso n w h o h as a w e l l f ounde d f e a rtha the ors he w i l l be f or c e d t o unde r go s uc h a pr oc e dur e ors ubj e c tt o pe r s e c ut i on f ors uc h f a i l ur e , r e f

us a l , or r e s i s t a nc e s ha l l be de e m e d t o ha ve aw e l l f ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on o n a c c o u n t o f

p o litic a l o p in io n . I N A § 101( a ) ( 42) , 8 U . S . C . § 1101( a ) ( 42) . T he s t a tut e i t s e l f i s s i l e nton the i s s ue o f as p o u s e ’s d e r iv a tiv e a s y lu m . See i d. T h e B I A h a s d e te rm in e dth a t th e ab ility o f o n e s p o u s e to c la im r e f u g e e s ta tu s , u n d e r§ 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) , b a s e do n th e f o r c ib le ab o rtio n o rs te r iliz a tio n o f th e o th e rs p o u s e is lim ite dto th o s e le g a llym a rr ie d . In r e S-L-L- , 24 I. & N . D ec . 1, 7 (B IA 19 96 ) ( e n banc ). W e r ec ent l y a ff i rm ed as r e a s o n ab le th e B I A ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t le g a l m a rr ia g e is r e q u ir e din o r d e rto e x te n d d e r iv a tiv e r e f

u g e e s ta tu s to ah u s b a n df o rh is w if

e ’s f o r c ib le ab o rtio n . See Y iQ i ang Y

ang v . U . S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 4 9 4 F .3 d1 3 1 1 , 1 3 1 7 - 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . B ec ause w e c on cl ud e thatthe B IA ’ s i nt erpret at i on of the as yl um st atut e, d e n y in g d e r iv a tiv e a s y lu m to ap a rtn e rn o t le g a llym a rr ie da t th e tim e w h e n h is p a rtn e rwa s s u b

j e c t e d t o af

o r c i b l e ab o rt i o n o rs t e r i l i z a t i o n , wa s r e a s o n ab l e , we d e f e rto th e B I A ’s in te rp r e ta tio n .5 III. L i u ne xta r gue s tha t , s i nc e hi s m a rr i a ge w a s l e ga l l yr e gi s t e r e d i n 2005, a nd h e a n d S u n h a d b e e n liv in g a s h u s b a n da n dw if e s in c e 1 9 9 9 , h e w a s e n title dto as yl um prot ec t i on du e t o h i s w i fe ’ s pas tpers ec ut i on , pu rs uantt o the B IA ’ s f orm er deci si on s, w hi ch al l ow an appl i cantt o est abl i sh as yl um el i gi bi l i ty due t o h i s/her s p o u s e ’s f

o r c e d s te r iliz a tio n . L iu r e c o g n iz e s th a t th e B I A h a s lim ite dth is pr ot e c t i on t o m a rr i e d c oupl e s , buta s he a nd hi s w i f e a r e now l e ga l l ym a rr i e d, he c l a i m s tha the ha s e s t abl i s he d the r e qui s i t e ne xus a nd l e ve l of ha rm f orpe r s e c ut i on, m aki ng hi m el i gi bl e f

or as yl um . L i u al so ar gu es thathe dem on stra t ed “ other r e s i s t a nc e ” t o C hi na ’ s f a m i l ypl a nni ng pol i c yby : ( 1) i m pr e gna t i ng hi s w i f e ; ( 2) ha vi ng tw o c hi l dr e n i n s e c r e c ya nd i n vi ol a t i on of C hi ne s e l a w ; ( 3) e s c api ng C hi ne s e f

a m i l ypl a nni ng of

f i c i a l s w ho w e r e pl a nni ng on s t e r i l i z i ng hi m ; a nd ( 4) g o in g in to h id in g a n d r e f u s in g to p a yf

in e s im p o s e du p o n h im . W e “r e v ie w o n lyth e [ B I A ]’s d e c is io n , e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th a t it e x p r e s s ly adop t s the IJ ’ s opi ni on . ” N a jja rv . A s h c r o

ft , 2 5 7 F .3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 8 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .

“ Insofar a s the [B IA ] adop t s the IJ ’ s r ea soni ng , w e w i l l re vi ew the IJ ’ s dec i si on as w el l . ” I d. T o the ext entthatthe IJ ’ s and the B IA ’ s dec i si on s are base d o n a l egal d et erm i n at i o n , rev i ew i s de no vo . Mo h a m m e d v . A s h c r o

ft , 261 F . 3d 1244, 1247- 48 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . F a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n s , h o w e v e r , a r e r e v ie w e du n d e rth e “h ig h ly defe re nt i al subst ant i al evi dence t es t , ” w hi ch re qu i re s us t o “ vi ew the re cord6

e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e [ I J ]’s d e c is io n a n dd r a w a ll r e a s o n ab le i nfer ence s i n favor of thatdeci si on . ” A de fe m i v . A s h c r o

ft , 386 F . 3d 1022, 1026- 27 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( e n banc ) . W e h a v e s ta te d th a t: [ A ] s y l um r e l i e f

r e qui r e s pr oof

of tw o c r i t e r i a . T o e s t abl i s h a s y l um base d o n p as tpers ec ut i on , the appl i cantm ustprov e ( 1) thatshe w as pers ec ut ed, and (2) thatthe pers ec ut i on w as on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd . T o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f or as yl um base d o n a w el l -f ou nd ed f e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n , th e ap p lic a n t m u s t p r o v e ( 1 ) a‘s u b je c tiv e ly ge nui ne a nd obj e c t i ve l yr e a s onabl e ’ f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on, tha ti s ( 2) on a c c o u n t o f

ap r o te c te d g r o u n d . Si lv a v . U

. S. A t t ' yG e n. , 44 8 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 36 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). I n Y ang , w e a l s o he l d tha t , e ve n a s s um i ng tha tthe pe t i t i one re s t abl i s he d, unde rthe

“ othe rr e s i s t a nc e ” c l aus e of § 1101( a ) ( 42) , tha the ( 1) “ ha d a n e xtr e m e l yc l os e a nd c o m m itte d r e la tio n s h ip ” w ith h is p a rtn e r , a n d( 2 ) p h y s ic a llyr e s is te df a m ily pl anni ng offi ci al s a tthe ho spi t al i n an att em ptt o p re venthi s partner’ s f orce d abort i on, he c oul d note s t abl i s h tha the w a s pe r s e c ut e d, w he r e he onl yha d a ph ys i ca l al t er ca t i on w i th fam i l y pl anni ng offi ci al s a tthe ho spi t al , w as subp oenaed bythe l oc a l s e c ur i tyof

f i c e , a nd w a s s oughtbyf a m i l ypl a nni ng of

f i c i a l s a nd “V illa g e C a d r e s ,” w h o tr ie d a n d w e r e s till s e e k in g to a rr e s t h im . Y ang , 49 4 F . 3d at 1319. W e he l d tha t , w he r e the pe t i t i one rs uf f e r e d no pr ol onge d de t e nt i on or ph ys i ca l vi ol ence , w e w er e notcom pel l ed t o con cl ud e thatthe pet i t i on ersuff er ed p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . I

d.Liu also argues for the first time on appe al that: (1) his wife ’s forc ed abor tion and 1 sterilization resulted in his emoti onal trauma and psycholog ical persecution; (2) hewas perse cuted by

the g overnment’s imposit ion of fines, which he wa s unable to pay ; and (3) the g overnment effe ctively

deprive d him of his livelihood, as he was forced into hiding . However, we lack jurisdiction to review theseclaims, as they were not exhausted below. See Amaya-

Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 463 F.3d 1247, 1250- 51 (11th Cir. 2006). 7 T he re cord do es no tcom pel re vers al of the B IA ’ s det erm i nat i on thatL i u h ad n o t s u f f e r e d in d e p e n d e n t p a s t p e r s e c u tio n b a s e do n h is r e s is ta n c e to f a m ily p la n n in g p o lic ie s , b e c au s e w e c o n c lu d e th a t ab r ie f a lte r c a tio n w ith f

a m ily p la n n in g o f

f ic ia ls a n d g o in g in to h id in g to av o ida rr e s t a r e n o t s u f f ic ie n t to e s t abl i s h pe r s e c ut i on. 1 I V. L i u ne xta r gue s tha the e s t abl i s he d aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on b as ed o n h is re sistan ce to fa m il y- p lan n in g law s. H e c o n ten d s th at h is w ife’s s t e r i l i z a t i on doe s notne ga t e the pos s i bi l i tyof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on, a nd the pr e s um pt i on of

f utur e pe r s e c ut i on e s t abl i s he d byhi s w i f e ’ s s t e r i l i z a t i on ha s not be e n r e butt e d. A ddi t i ona l l y , he a s s e rt s tha ta n out s t a ndi ng f i ne c r e a t e s af

e a rof f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n b e c au s e , a s lo n g a s th e f in e r e m a in s u n p a id , h e a n dh is w if e w ill liv e in f e a r . A sy l um st atus can b e e st abl i shed base d o n a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n , b yp r o v in g th a t th e r e is “( 1 ) a‘s u b je c tiv e lyg e n u in e a n do b je c tiv e ly8

re as on abl e’ fe arof pers ec ut i on , thati s ( 2) on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed grou nd . ” Si lva , 4 4 8 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 6 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . W e h a v e h e ldth a t: I ti s “ w e l l - e s t abl i s he d” tha tthe w e l l - f ounde d f e a ri nqui ryc ont a i ns b o th an o b

j ect i v e an d su b

j ect i v e co m p o n en t , i . e. , th e p et i t i o n er m u st b e g e n u i n e l ya f

r a i d a n d th a tf

e a rm u s tb e o b

j e c t i v e l yr e a s o n ab l e . As w e have not ed, “ pers ec ut i on ” i s an “ extre m e c on ce pt , ” r equi ri ng m ore th a n “af e w is o la te d in c id e n ts o f v e rb a l h a r a s s m e n t o rin tim id a tio n ,” o r“m e r e h a r a s s m e n t.” F u rth e rm o r e , it is th e p e titio n e r ’s b u r d e n to pr e s e nt“ s pe c i f

i c , de t a i l e d f

a c t s s how i ng agood r e a s on t o f e a rtha the or she w i l l be si ng l ed ou tfor per se cut i on . ” H uang v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 429 F . 3d 1002, 1009 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i ons a nd al t er at i on s om i tt ed). B e c au s e L iu w a s n o t ab le to d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e C h in e s e g o v e rn m e n t s till w oul d be i nt e r e s t e d i n a rr e s t i ng hi m thr e e y e a r s a f t e rhe l e f tC hi na , w e c onc l ude th a t h e h a s n o t e s tab lis h e d aw e ll- f o u n d e df e a ro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . V. F i nal l y, L i u argues that , because the B IA has neverre qu i re d thatm arri ages h a v e to e x is t d u r in g a ll r e le v a n t tim e p e r io d s o f th e r e s is ta n c e to f

a m ilyp la n n in g , it s h o u ldh a v e g r a n te d h is m o tio n to r e m a n dto p r o v e th e c u rr e n t v a lid ityo f h is m a rr ia g e . B e c aus e the m ot i on t o r e m a nd r e que s t e d a ddi t i ona l pr oc e e di ngs t o pr e s e nt ne w e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng L i u’ s e l i gi bi l i tyf orr e l i e f , i tw a s i n the na tur e of

am ot i on to r e o p e n . See N

aj j ar , 257 F . 3d a t1301. W e r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de ni a l of am ot i on9

t o reopen for an abuse of di sc re t i on , and “ the B IA ’ s di sc re t i on i s qui t e broad. ” G bay a v . U

. S. A t t ’ yG e n. , 342 F . 3d 1219, 1220 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( quot a t i on o m itte d ) . T h e m a rr ia g e c e rtif

ic a te d idn o t a d da n yn e w m a te r ia l in f o rm a tio n , a s it o n ly pr ove d tha the w a s c urr e nt l yl e ga l l ym a rr i e d, nottha the w a s m a rr i e d a tthe r e le v a n t tim e . T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n . F or the abov e- st at ed re as on s, w e c on cl ud e thatthe B IA prop er l y di sm i ss ed th e ap p e a l a n d d e n ie d th e m o tio n . P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.