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 2-17-2010 

# C he n 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 . 08-1197

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
" C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1881. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1881NOT 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- 1197

___________ Z HI L I ANG C HE N, Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ 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- 593- 931) Im m igrati o n Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M arg are t R . R eich en b erg

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

February4, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed February17, 2010)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ P E R C UR I AM Z h i L ian g C h e n , a c iti z e n o f C h in a , en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in 2 0 0 4 w ith o u t v a lid tra v e l d o c u m e n ts. H e n o w p e tit io n s f o r re v iew o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls or deraff i r m i ng w i thoutopi ni on an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s or derdeny i ng hi s appl i cat i ons2

fo r asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “ CA T ” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, 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. A ta hea r i ng befor e the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) , C hen al l eged thathe had be en per s ecut ed on ac countof r el i gi on as he i s a C hr i s t i an. C hen t es t i fi ed thathe bega n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c h u r c h a c t i v i t i e s wi th h i s g r a n d mo th e rwh e n h e wa s i n h i g h s c h o o l . He and hi s fami l yi ni t i al l yatt ended a governm ents anct i oned chur ch, butC hen l at erj oi ned an under gr ound “pr i vat e” c hur ch i n 2001 aft erbel i evi ng thatthe C hi nes e governm entw as l i m i t i ng hi s abi l i tyt o w or s hi p. H e bega n di s tr i but i ng r el i gi ous pamphl et s and gi vi ng sp e e c h e s a b o u t th e B ib le, b o th w h ile h e w a s in h ig h sc h o o l an d a f ter g ra d u a tio n a t h is p lac e o f w o rk . H e a lso sta ted th a t f ro m th e e n d o f

2 0 0 3 , so m e c h u rc h m e m b e rs w o u ld gatherathi s hom e t o di s cus s the B i bl e and pr ay , as w el l as part i ci pat e i n act i vi t i es a s s o c ia te d w ith a n u n d e rg ro u n d c h u rc h . C hen al s o t es t i fi ed thati n A ugus t2004, w hi l e w or ki ng ata s uperm arket , he w as arr es t ed and t aken t o a pol i ce s t at i on w her e he w as fur theri nt err ogat ed. W hen C hen refused t o d i vu l ge d et ai l s of t he ch urch m eet i ng s, he w as sl app ed o n the face. C hen al so al l eges thatthe pol i ce tr i ed t o br i be hi m t o fi nd outdet ai l s of chur ch meet i ngs . H e w as det ai ned foraboutfor ty - ei ghthour s . A ft erbei ng r el eas ed, he w as notal l ow ed t o l eave t ow n w i thoutperm i s s i on and w as r equi r ed t o r eportt o the pol i ce s t at i on r egul ar l y . C hen l eftC hi na forthe U ni t ed St at es i n N ovember2004 and ent er ed i l l egal l yi n D ece m ber 2 0 0 4 .3

A ta cont i nued hea r i ng i n J une 2006, C hen w as gi ven the opportuni tyt o m ake addi t i onal change s t o hi s as y l um appl i cat i on. T hr ough hi s att orney , C hen i ndi cat ed that he w ant ed t o change the i nform at i on r egar di ng the dat e on w hi ch hi s empl oym entended atthe s uperm arket . A tthe begi nni ng of the hea r i ng, he r eques t ed the dat e t o be cha nged t o A pr i l 2004. C hen’ s att orneyw entoff the r ecor d t o confi r m thi s fac tand the I J ver i fi ed that this ch an g e w as true , ac cu rate, an d co m p let e. D u ri n g cro ss-ex am ination , h o w ev er, C hen w as as ked how he coul d have be en arr es t ed i n A ugus t2004 i f he e nded w or k att he su p e rm a rk e t in A p ril 2 0 0 4 . C h e n re sp o n d e d th a t h e a m e n d e d h is a p p lica tio n to in d ica te thathi s empl oym entended “ A ugus t10 . ” The I J , how ever , poi nt ed outthatC hen had th
m a d e a n e f

f o rt to sp e c if

ica llya m e n d th is d a te to A p ril 2 0 0 4 , an d w h e n a sk e d to e x p lain th is in c o n s is te n c y , C h e n s ta te d th a t h e “ d id n o t r e a lly p a ya tte n tio n to it.” T h e IJ d eterm ined that C h en w as “ n o t a cred ible an d p ersu asiv e w itn ess.” T h e IJ ci t ed mat er i al di s cr epanc i es and i ncons i s t enci es betw een hi s t es t i m ony , as y l um a p p lica tio n , an d d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e . T h e IJ a lso n o ted th a t ev e n if c re d ib le, C h e n still fai l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof foras y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and di d not es t abl i s h the l i kel i hood thathe w oul d be t or tur ed underC A T . T he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff

i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i thoutopi ni on. W her e the B I A s i m pl yaff i r m s the I J ’ s deci s i on, w e r evi ew the I J ’ s opi ni on. See D i a v. A s hcr oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 240 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) . W e r evi ew the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct s fors ubs t ant i al evi dence and w i l l uphol d the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ngs “t o theT h e IJ n o ted th a t th e re w a s a q u e stio n a s to w h e th e r th e R E A L ID A c t ap p lied to 1 C hen’ s appl i cat i on. T he R E A L I D A ctgoverns appl i cat i ons fi l ed on oraft erM ay11, 2 0 0 5 . P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 -1 3 , § 1 0 1 (a )(3 )(B )(iii), 11 9 S tat. 2 3 1 , 3 0 3 (2 0 0 5 ) (c o d if ied a t 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) ) . H er e, C hen’ s appl i cat i on w as s i gned on A pr i l 13, 2005; how ever , a cove rl ett erand courtfi l i ng s t amp ar e dat ed J une 20, 2005. G i ven the d iffe ren ce in d ates, th e IJ g av e C h en the b en ef ito f th e d o u b t and d id n o t app lythe m o re s tr in g e n t p ro v is io n s o f

th e R E A L ID A c t in a d ju d ic a tin g h is a p p lic a tio n . 4 ext entthattheyar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence on the re c o rd c o n s id e re d a s a w h o le .” K a y e m b e v . A s h c ro f t, 3 3 4 F .3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). W e m a yre v e rse th e se f in d in g s “ o n lyif

th e re is e v id e n c e so c o m p e lli n g th a t n o re a so n a b le f a c tf in d e r c o u ld c o n c lu d e a s th e [ IJ ] d id .” Id .; s e e a ls o IN A § 2 4 2 (b )( 4 )( B ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b )(4 )(B ). A d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g s m a yb e b a se d o n in c o n sis ten c ies , b u t o n lyif the i ncons i s t enci es r el at e t o fac t s atthe hea r tof the cl ai m , r atherthan t o uni m por t ant d etail s. S ee C h u k w u v . A tt ’yG en . o f th e U n it ed S tat es, 48 4 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 9 (3d C ir . 2007) ; G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( cas es expl ai ni ng the p re-R E A L ID A ct st an d ard o f re v iew ). 1 T he I J det erm i ned thatC hen w as nota cr edi bl e orper s uas i ve w i tnes s bas ed on the i ncons i s t enci es i n C hen’ s t es t i m onyand the s uppor t i ng document at i on. W e agr ee. B as ed on ourr evi ew of the r ecor d, C hen w as i ncons i s t enton m at er i al as pect s of hi s t es t i m ony thatr el at e t o t he hea r tof hi s per s ecut i on cl ai m . Forexampl e, he i ni t i al l yt es t i fi ed thathe w as C athol i c; a fe w ques t i ons l at er , he r emem ber ed he w as notC athol i c, buti dent i fi ed h im se lf a s a C h ristia n . W h e n C h e n w a s q u e stio n e d a b o u t h is a rre st, h e sta ted th a t it occurr ed on A ugus t10, 2004, w hi l e he w as w or ki ng atthe s uperm arket . Y etC hen had5

s p e c if ic a lly re q u e s te d to c la ri f yth e d a te h e e n d e d h is e m p lo ym e n t to b e A p ri l 2 0 0 4 . A lth o u g h d a tes m a yn o t alw a y s b e im p o rta n t, he re , the d a te o f h is a rre st w a s a v ital d e tail c e n tr a l to h is p e rs e c u tio n c la im , a n d h is in c o n s is te n c yra is e s d o u b t a b o u t h is c re d ib ility. I n addi t i on, C hen w as evas i ve and va gue i n hi s t es t i m ony , and the s uppor t i ng document at i on he pr ovi ded furthercompl i cat es hi s cr edi bi l i ty . Forexampl e, w hen as ked aboutthe chur ch he a t t ends s i nce a rr i vi ng i n the U ni t ed St at es , C hen s t at ed thatthe chur ch i s i n N ew Y or k, buthe di d notknow i t s addr es s orexac tl ocat i on. C hen t es t i fi ed thathe att ends w eekl yors o, and thata fr i end t akes hi m ther e. C hen then s t at ed thathe tak e s p u b lic tra n sp o rta tio n , b u t w h e n a sk e d f u rth e r, sta ted th a t h is u n c le d ro v e h im to C hi nat ow n and he w al ked. N ei therC hen’ s fr i end noruncl e t es t i fi ed forhi m atthe hear i ng t o corr obor at e thi s cl ai m . W hen as ked aboutthe under gr ound chur ch meet i ngs thatt ook pl ace i n C hi na, C hen pr ovi ded a c ert i fi cat e fr om the C hangl e C hr i s t i an A ss o c iatio n , b u t sta ted th a t itw a s a ss o c iate d w ith g o v e rn m e n t ch u rc h e s. H e a lso c o u ld notexpl ai n the purpos e of the C hangl e C hr i s t i an A s s oci at i on. Fi nal l y , C hen coul d not ex p lai n h o w h is un d erg rou n d ch u rch in C h ina c am e tog ethe r, m et, o rga n ized fu ture m e e tin g s , o r d e c id e d th e c o n te n t o f its s e rv ic e s . M or eover , even i f C hen w er e cr edi bl e, the evi dence s uppor t s the I J ’ s concl us i on thatC hen fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on, w hi ch r equi r es both an obj ect i ve and s ubj ect i ve s how i ng. See A bdul r ahman v. A s hcr oft , 330 F. 3d 587, 592 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). P e rse c u tio n in c lu d e s “ th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t o rtu re , an d e c o n o m icT h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t C h e n w a iv e d ju d icia l re v iew b yn o t ar g u in g in h is 2 o p e n in g b ri e f

th e IJ ’s d e n ia ls o f

h is w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l a n d C A T p ro te c tio n c la im s . W e a g ree . R eg ard less, the s tand ard fo r th ese claim s is m o re d em an d ing than the s tand ard t o gr antas y l um , and thus , C hen ca nnotes t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforei ther . See Lukw ago, 329 F. 3d at182- 83. 6 r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . H er e C hen di d nots how thathi s fea rr i s es t o the l evel of per s ecut i on beca us e he w as s l apped byC hi nes e author i t i es on one i s ol at ed occ as i on. See C hen v. A s hcr oft , 381 F. 3d 221, 235 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( an al l eged be at i ng thatdoes not r es ul ti n anyi nj ur i es thatr equi r e medi cal att ent i on does notcons t i tut e per s ecut i on) . N or does C hen s how thatan obj ect i ve fe arof futur e per s ecut i on exi s t s . H e t es t i fi ed thataft er he l eftC hi na, the pol i ce vi s i t ed hi s hom e tw i ce t o i nqui r e as t o hi s w her eabout s . Si nce then, hi s fami l ym ember s have nothad pr obl ems w i th the author i t i es . Such l i m i t ed i nt er act i on w i th t he C hi nes e author i t i es does nots ugges tthatC hen w oul d fac e l i feth re a ten in g c irc u m sta n c e s if re tu rn e d to C h in a , an d h e p ro v id e s n o e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld a llo w u s to c o n c lu d e o th e rw is e . A c c o rd in g ly, w e a g re e th a t h e is in e lig ib le f o r a s y lu m . B ecause C hen fai l ed to m eetthe b urden o f proo f requir ed fo r as y l um , he h as al so fai l ed t o m eetthe hi ghers t andar d fors t atut oryw i thhol di ng of r emoval . See Lukw ago v. 2 A sh c ro f t, 32 9 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 8 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). C h e n a lso f a ils to sh o w th a t itis m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t h e w ill b e to rtu re d if re m o v e d to C h in a , an d th e re f o re , h e is n o t elig ib le to r ece i ve C A T pr ot ect i on. 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on f o rr e v i e w.