2008 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 10-29-2008 

# W ang 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 . 07-4654

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_2008

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 2008 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 " W an g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 310. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/310NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O URTO F AP P E ALS F O R T H ET H IRD C IRC U IT

___________ No. 07-4654

___________ QUI NGLI N WANG, Petitioner

v. AT TO RN EYGENE RALOF TH E U NITE D STAT ES, Respondent

____________________________________ Petition for Review of a

n Order of the B oa rd of Immi gratio n App e a ls (Ag ency No. A200-032- 277) Immigration Judg e: Honora ble Marg aret R. Reichenberg

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

O ct ober15, 2008 B efor e: R E N D E L L , G R E E N B E R G and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: O ct ober29, 2008)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM Q ui ngl i n W ang pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derbythe B oar d 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 fi nal or derof r emoval . Forthe f o llo w 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 .2 I. W ang, a ci t i zen of

C hi na, arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es i n J ul y2005. Soon th e re a f ter , W a n g w a s s e rv e d w ith a N o tice to A p p e a r c h a rg in g h im w ith b e in g p re se n t in the U ni t ed St at es w i thouthavi ng been a dm i t t ed orpar ol ed. See I N A § 212( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) [8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) ] . I n r es pons e, W ang appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol 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 ”) , cl ai m i ng thathe h a d b e e n p e rs e c u te d in C h in a o n a c c o u n t o f h is C h ri s tia n f

a ith . I n hi s appl i cat i on, W ang s t at ed thathe bec ame i nt er es t ed i n C hr i s t i ani tyi n 2002, wh e n a s tr a n g e ra ta b o o k s t o r e t o o k h i m a s i d e a n d g a v e h i m a c o p yo f th e Bi b l e . ( A. R. 0 0 0 2 6 2 .) W a n g e x p lain e d th a t, af ter re a d in g th e B ib le, h e b e g a n a tten d in g c h u rc h to lea rn m o re a b o u t C h ristia n ity . (Id . at 0 0 0 2 6 3 .) H e in iti a llya tten d e d c e rta in g o v e rn m e n tc o n tro lled c h u rc h e s, b u t so o n d isc o v e re d th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t f o rc e d th e c ler g ym e n in thei rchur ches t o di s t or tthe meani ng of the B i bl e i n or dert o pr om ot e an a nt i - C hr i s t i an ag en d a. (I d . ) A s a re su lt , W an g d ec ided to join a n u n d erg rou n d C h ri sti an ch u rch (a “f am il ych u rch ”) instea d . (Id.) W a n g f u rth e r sta ted th a t, i n M a rc h 2 0 0 5 , w h ile h e w a s a tten d in g se rv ice s a t a fami l ychur ch, fi ve pol i cemen di s rupt ed the gather i ng. ( I d. ) T he pol i ce c onfi s cat ed the gr oup’ s B i bl es and t ook every one t o the pol i ce s t at i on fori nt err ogat i on. ( I d. ) W ang s t at ed that , w hen he r efus ed t o ans w ercert ai n ques t i ons , the pol i ce be athi m and ki cked3

hi m . ( I d. ) W ang s pentthe ni ghtatthe s t at i on w i thoutfood, w at er , ora bl anket , and, t he fol l ow i ng day , w as for ced t o s t amp hi s fi ngerpr i ntupon a documentagr eei ng t o gi ve up hi s fai th. ( I d. ) A ccor di ng t o W ang, the pol i ce a l s o or der ed hi m t o pr ovi de the names and a d d r e s s e s o f

me mb e r s o f

th e c h u r c h wh o we r e a b s e n to n th e d a yo f th e r a i d . ( I d . ) He in iti a llyre f

u se d , an d w a s b e a ten a g a in . (Id .) A lth o u g h W a n g ’s s tate m e n t is n o t en tirely cl earon thi s poi nt , i tappea r s thathe then agr eed t o pr ovi de the names and addr es s es of s om e mem ber s , butnotot her s . ( I d. at000264) W ang s t at ed thathe w as r el eas ed l at er thateveni ng and w arned nott o att end anym or e fa m i l ychur ches . W ang s t at ed thathe fe are d return ing to C h ina b ec au se h e “ fa il ed to d o w h at th e p o li ce told [ h im ]. ” (Id . ) O n J une 12, 2006, W ang appe ar ed fora r emoval hear i ng befor e I m m i gr at i on J udge (“ IJ” ) M a rg a re t R . R e ich e n b e rg . A t th e h e a rin g , W a n g tes tifie d a b o u t h is m e m b e rsh ip in the C hr i s t i an chur ch and de s cr i bed the eve nt s s urr oundi ng hi s arr es ti n M ar ch 2005. T he IJ, h o w ev er, fo u n d W an g ’s t esti m o n yincre d ible, an d d en ied re li ef. IJ R eich en b erg des cr i bed W ang as a verypoorw i tnes s and not ed thathe fr equent l yhes i t at ed and stru g g led to p rov ide a n sw ers to the q u esti o n s p rese n ted. T h e IJ a lso f o u n d that there w ere a numberof i ncons i s t enci es w i thi n hi s t es t i m onyas w el l as betw een hi s t es t i m onyand the s ta te m e n t a c c o m p a n y in g h is a p p lic a tio n . U p o n re v iew , the B IA f o u n d n o c lea r e rro r in th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on, and, byor derent er ed N ovember29, 2007, aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deni al of W a n g ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n s f

o ra s y l u m, wi th h o l d i n g o f r e mov a l , a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T.4

T h e p re s e n t p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w f

o llo w e d . II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e B IA ’s o rd e r o f re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 12 52 (a) (1) . W hen , as i n thi s case, the B IA subst anti al l yrel i es on the fi nd i ng s of t he IJ, w e r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both t he B I A and the I J . See X i e v. A s hcr oft , 359 F. 3d 239, 24 2 (3d C i r. 20 04 ). W e revi ew these findi ng s, i ncludi ng anycredi bil i tydeterm i nati on s, u n d er a su b stan ti al ev iden ce stan d ard . S ee C ao v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 2 (3d C ir . 2005) . A n 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 or w oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ” B er i s haj v. A s hcr oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 3 2 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (q u o tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B )). B e c a u se W a n g f iled h is ap p li ca ti o n fo r reli ef

af ter th e e n ac tm en t of

the R E A L ID A ct of

2 0 0 5 , the B IA ’s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons ar e governed bythe A ct . See C hukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 484 F. 3d 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 IJ m a yb a se h e r c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on on obs ervat i ons of the appl i cant ’ s demeanor , the pl aus i bi l i tyof the a p p l i c a n t ’ s s t o r y , a n d o n th e c o n s i s t e n c yo f th e a p p l i c a n t ’ s s t a t e me n t s . S e e I NA § 2 0 8 (b )( 1 )( B )( iii) ; G a b u n iya v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 6 3 F .3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 2 n .7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). U p o n rev iew , w e a re sa ti sfied that su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the B IA ’s an d IJ’s adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons . Fi r s t , as the B I A and I J expl ai ned, ther e w er e s ever al di s cr epanc i es betw een W ang’ s appl i cat i on and hi s t es t i m onyatthe r emoval hear i ng. For in sta n c e , w h ile W a n g ’s a p p lica tio n sta ted th a t h e w a s b e a ten tw ice d u rin g h is d e ten tio n in5

M ar ch 2005 ( A . R . 000263) , w hen he r ecount ed the i nci dentatthe hea r i ng, he ment i oned onl yone bea t i ng. ( A . R . 000149- 156. ) W hen conf r ont ed w i th thi s i ncons i s t ency , W ang change d hi s t es t i m onyand adde d t hathe w as , i n fac t , beat en a s econd t i m e. ( A . R . 00157- 1 5 9 .) S im ilarly , w h e re a s W a n g ’s a p p lica tio n sta ted th a t h e a tten d e d g o v e rn m e n tcontr ol l ed chur ches befor e j oi ni ng hi s fami l ychur ch ( A . R . 000263) , he t es t i fi ed atthe h e a ri n g th a t th e o n ly ch u rc h h e a tte n d e d w a s h is f a m ily c h u rc h , th e X in X in c h u rc h . (A . R . 0 0 0 1 1 9 -12 0 . ) T he B I A al s o poi nt ed t o i ncons i s t enci es w i thi n W ang’ s t es t i m onyon the dayof the hear i ng. Forexampl e, W ang i ni t i al l yt es t i fi ed thats even orei ghtotherm ember s of the chur ch w er e arr es t ed w i th hi m i n t he M ar ch 2005 r ai d ( A . R . 000114) , butl at ers t at ed that there w ere o n lysix o thers. (A . R . 0 0 0 1 2 6 . ) In a d d it ion , alth o u g h h e f ir st t o ld the co u rt that pol i ce had vis i t ed h i s hom e “veryfrequen t l y , fou r orfi ve, fou r— three or four t i m es” af ter his arrest (A . R . 0 0 0 1 2 9 ), h e later t esti fied that theyca m e o n lytw ice. ( A . R . 0 0 1 3 4 . ) W ang al s o t es t i fi ed atthe hea r i ng thathi s m otherw as s um m oned t o the pol i ce s t at i on on Ap r i l 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , a n d s t a t e d th a th e wa s n o l o n g e ri n th e c o u n trya tth a tt i me . ( A. R. 000137. ) W hen the governm entpoi nt ed outt o hi m thathe di d notl eave C hi na unt i l M ay 2 0 0 5 , h e c h an g ed h is st o ryan d ad d ed , fo r th e f ir st t im e, th at he h ad g o n e into h iding fo r a p eriod p ri o r t o leav ing the c o u n try . (A . R . 0 0 0 1 3 8 . ) In li g h t of

thes e inc o n sist en cies, an d d ef erring to the IJ’s find ing s ab o u t W an g ’s d e m e a n o r, w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t “a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled ” to6

d is a g re e w ith th e B IA ’s a n d IJ ’s a d v e rs e c re d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B ). T h u s, w e a g ree that W an g fa il ed to es tablish e li g ibil ityfo r asy lum u n d er 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . G i ven thatW ang’ s cl ai m s forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef unde rthe C A T w er e bas ed on the s ame evi dence as hi s as y l um cl ai m , w e conc l ude th a t s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s th e d e n ia l o f th e s e c la im s a s w e ll. III . Ac c o r d i n g l y , f

o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th a b o v e , 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.