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 3-17-2010 

# Ji an Li Zhe ng 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 . 08-3927

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 author i 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 " Ji an L i Zhe n g v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1705. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1705NOT 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. 08- 3927

___________ J I AN L I Z HE NG, 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 098- 740- 723) I m m i gr at i on J udge: A l ber t o J . R i efkohl

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

M ar ch 10, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, SM I T H and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 17, 2010

_____________ OP I NI ON

_____________ P E R C U R I A M.

Jian L i Z h en g h as f

il ed a p eti ti o n fo r rev iew o f th e f inal o rde r bythe B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”’ s ) deni al of Z heng’ s r eques t s foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng of r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l denythe2

p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he bac kgr ound of thi s cas e, and s o w e pr ovi de o n lya su m m aryo f th e p roc ee d ing s. Z h en g is a n ati v e a n d cit izen o f th e P eo p le’s R e p u b lic o f

C h in a w h o a rriv e d in th e U n ited S tate s in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 . S h e w a s p lac e d in r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s a s a n a r r i v i n g a l i e n wi t h o u ta v a l i d e n t r yd o c u me n t( 8 U. S . C. § 1182( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) ) . She conce ded r emovabi l i t yand appl i ed foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng o f re m o v al, an d C A T reli ef as a F alun G o n g p rac ti ti o n er. T h e IJ h eld a n ev iden ti ary hear i ng on Z heng’ s cl ai m s on D ece m ber21, 2006.

Z heng t es t i fi ed aboutheri nvol vementw i t h Fal un G ong. Z heng s t at ed that sh e o f ten h a d b e e n ill w ith th ro a t in f e c tio n s a n d f

e v e r, an d sh e h a d a g ro w th o r lu m p in h e r th ro a t, as d iag n o se d b ya d o c to r in C h in a . S h e late r d e sc rib e d h e r c o n d iti o n a s a “ b ig m embra ne of c el l s ” nea rherm out h. A fr i end w i th s i m i l arheal t h aff l i ct i ons i ntr oduced hert o t he pr act i ce of

Fal un G ong. Z heng bega n herpr act i ce i n 2003, and herthr oat condi t i on i m pr oved. Z heng s t at ed thats he us ed t o pr act i ce Fal un G ong everyday , ei ther atherhom e oratherfr i end’ s hous e. W hi l e atherfr i end’ s hous e i n N ovember2004, her par ent s t el ephoned t o t el l hert hatt he pol i ce ha d s ear ched thei rhom e l ooki ng forher beca us e of he rFal un G ong act i vi t i es . Z heng di d notr eturn hom e and i ns t ead w entt o l i ve w i t h hergr andaunt , w ho l i ved abouttw o hour s aw ay . She t es t i fi ed thati n J anuary2005, t he pol i ce c ame t o hergr andaunt ’ s hom e w hi l e Zheng w as out s i de, gather i ng fl ow er s on t he mount ai n nearhergr andaunt ’ s hom e. She s aw the pol i ce c ar s and r emai ned outof3

vi ew unt i l t heydepart ed. H ergr andauntl at ert ol d Z heng thatthe pol i ce ha d acc us ed her of vi ol at i ng t he l aw bypr act i ci ng Fal un G ong. Z heng then w entt o s t ayatanother fr i end’ s hous e, and then s he arr anged t o come t o t he U ni t ed St at es . Z heng s t at ed thatt he pol i ce c ont i nued t o vi s i therhom e aboutonce a w eek dur i ng thi s per i od and thather par ent s w er e thr eat ened w i t h arr es ti f s he di d nots urr ender . She fea r s r eturni ng t o C hi na beca us e s he w oul d be arr es t ed forherFal un G ong pr act i ce a nd fori l l egal l yfl eei ng the countr y . Z heng s ubm i t t ed s uppor t i ng document at i on, i ncl udi ng i dent i t ydocument s and a let ter fro m h er f

athe r. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, Z heng s t at ed thats he w as notcert ai n abouthow o f ten th e p o lice v isited h e r p a re n ts’ h o m e to lo o k f o r h e r, b u t sh e a f

f irm e d th a t h e r p a re n ts have notbeen a r r es t ed des pi t e thatt hr eat ened out come. W hen as ked w hys he had t es t i fi ed thatt he pol i ce c ame t o l ook forherathergr andaunt ’ s hous e i n J anuary2005 w hen herw r i t t en s t at ementi ndi cat ed thatthe eve ntoccurr ed i n M ay2005, Z heng change d hert es t i m ony , aff i r m i ng t hatthe dat e w as M ay2005. A s fur t herexpl anat i on, sh e stated that the in terpreter w as sp ea k ing too q u ickly . T h e IJ e x p lored w h ethe r th ere pos s i bl ycoul d have be en a mi s under s t andi ng ori nt er change abi l i t yof the C hi nes e w or ds for“J anuary ” and “ M ay , ” and w hetherthe i nt erpr et erhear d “M ay ” buti nt erpr et ed

“ J a n u a ry” ; th e IJ o b s e rv e d th a t th e w o rd s in C h in e s e w e re c o m p le te ly d if f e re n t in s o u n d . U l t i m at el y , i n at t empt i ng t o cl ar i fyhert es t i m onyconce r ni ng the r el evantdat e, Z heng e x p lain e d th a t sh e h a d tes tifie d re g a rd in g h e r a rriv a l at h e r g ra n d a u n t’s h o u se in4

N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 4 a n d th e e v e n ts th a t f o llo w e d , the n sta ted , “I d o n ’t k n o w if I sa id N o v e m b e r a n d J a n u a ry a n d g o t c o n f u s e d .” (A .R . 1 0 8 .) T he I J found thatZ heng l acke d cr edi bi l i t y , deni ed al l form s of r el i ef, and o rde red rem o v al t o C h ina. O n A u g u st 25 , 2 0 0 8 , the B IA d ism issed the a p p ea l. T h e B IA fo u n d n o clea r error in the IJ’s ad v erse cre d ibil ityd eterm ination , cit ing Z h en g ’s unper s uas i ve t es t i m onyr egar di ng herm edi cal condi t i on, how author i t i es fi r s tdi s cover ed heract i vi t i es , and dat es w hen pol i ce s ear ched f orher . T hi s pet i t i on forr evi ew fol l ow ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof r emoval under 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) . T o t h e e x t e n tt h a tth e BI A d e f e r r e d t o th e I J ’ s c r e d i b i l i t yf i n d i n g s , we w i l l r evi ew t he I J ’ s deci s i on as s uppl ement ed bythe B I A . See X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F. 3d 239, 242 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . C r edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons ar e r evi ew ed underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. See i d. at243. A dver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons bas ed on sp e c u latio n o r c o n

jec tu re , rath e r th a n o n re c o rd e v id e n c e , are re v e rsib le. G a o v . A sh c ro f t, 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Z heng’ s as y l um appl i cat i on w as fi l ed af t erM ay11, 2005, and thus t he pr ovi s i ons of the R E A L I D A ctappl y . See C hukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 484 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). U n d e r th e R E A L ID A c t, an a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on can be bas ed on i ncons i s t enci es , i nher enti m pl aus i bi l i t i es , i nacc ur aci es , and o th e r f a c to rs , w ith o u t r e g a rd to w h e th e r t h e yg o to th e h e a rt o f a n a p p lic a n t’ s c la im . 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) . T he C our tm us tuphol d t he cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on of the B I A unl es s “anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . ”Be c a u s e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s th e a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i t yf i n d i n g , we 1 need notr eac h Z heng’ s ar gum ent s r el at i ng t o herel i gi bi l i t yforas y l um r el i ef. 5 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ).

Z heng t aci t l ychal l enges the appl i cabi l i t yof the R E A L I D A ctpr ovi s i on re g a rd in g c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n s, c o n ten d in g th a t th e a g e n c y ’s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on r es t s upon m i norand i r r el evantdi s cr epanc i es . W e nee d notcons i derthe eff ect s of the new pr ovi s i ons , how ever , beca us e w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on on m att er s thatconce r n t he hea r tof Z heng’ s cl ai m . Forexampl e, t he B I A not ed Zheng’ s unper s uas i ve t es t i m onyr egar di ng th e d a tes th e p o lice se a rc h e d f o r h e r– a n iss u e w h ich Z h e n g c o n c e d e s is a m a ter ial iss u e to heras y l um cl ai m . See Petr ’ s B r . at14. H eri ni t i al t es t i m onyi ndi cat i ng a J anuary2005 dat e w as i ncons i s t entw i t h herchange d t es t i m onyand herw r i t t en s t at ementi ndi cat i ng a M a y2 0 0 5 d a te. T h is d a te d isc re p a n c yc o n c e rn s a n e v e n t th a t w a s p u rp o rte d lyp iv o tal in Z heng’ s deci s i on t o fl ee t o t he U ni t ed St at es . W e agr ee w i t h t he B I A ’ s concl us i on that Z h e n g ’ s e x p l a n a t i o n s a tt h e h e a r i n g w e r e i n a d e q u a t e t o r e s o l v e th e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . We c o n c lu d e th a t th e re c o rd c o n tain s s u 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 fi ndi ng and does notcompel a contr aryfi ndi ng. 1

W e di s cern no r eas on t o di s turb t he age ncy ’ s deni al of as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of r emoval . Z heng pr es ent s no ar gum entr egar di ng hercl ai m forpr ot ect i on u n d e r th e C A T . W e d e e m a n yc h a llen g e to th e d e n ial o f C A T re lief

to b e w a iv e d a n d w ill6

n o t add ress it . S ee L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

W e w i l l denyt he pet i t i on forr evi ew . T he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d on t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d i s gr ant ed.