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
10-6-2010 

# F ei C he 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 : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2022

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

" F ei C he n g v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 343. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/343P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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- 2022

_____________ F E I M E I CH E NG A /K /A P E I K W A N L E E , P eti ti o n er, 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 der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyC as e N um berA 077- 354- 013) A r gued J ul y12, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, A L D I SE R T , and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober6, 2010)- 2- T h e o d o r e N. Co x , E s q . [ AR GUE D] H enryH w ang, E s q. 401 B r oadw ay , Sui t e 701 N ew Y or k, N Y 10013 C ouns el forPet i t i oner Br i e n a L

. S t r i p p o l i , E s q . [ AR GUE D] A nn M

. W el haf, E s q. Sada M ani ckam, E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el forR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

F U E N T E S , C irc u it Ju d g e : Fe i M e i Che n g ( “ Che n g ” ) i s a c i t i z e n a n d n a t i ve of Ch i n a . W h i l e l i v i n g i n Ch i n a ’ s F u j i a n P r o v i n c e , Ch e n g b e c a me pr eg n an tbutunderC hi nes e l aw w as t oo y oung t o m arr yher b o y f rie n d . O v e r th e c o u rse o f h e r p re g n a n c y , loc a l f a m ily- 3- pl anni ng offi ci al s empl oy ed a pat t ern of es cal at i ng t hr eat s i n an eff or tt o per s uade he rt o abortt he pr egnanc y , butC heng r es i s t ed and gave bi r t h t o a daught er . I n r es pons e t o herr es i s t ance t o t he popul at i on contr ol l aw s an d to i nduce he rt o under go a steri li za ti o n p roc ed u re, th e o ff ici als co n fisca ted th e f

am il yfa rm and truck, forbade C heng fr om w or ki ng on t he farm , thr eat ened t o t ake he rnew bor n daught er aw ayfr om her , and i m pos ed v a rio u s e c o n o m ic a n d o th e r sa n c tio n s. C h e n g w a s u lti m a tely for ced t o have a n i nt r aut er i ne devi ce ( “I U D ”) i ns ert ed, and s oon t her eaf t er , s he and he rboy fr i end fl ed t o the U ni t ed St at es . U pon a rr i v a l , s h e a p p lie d f

o r p ro te c tiv e re lie f

, in v o k in g 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 42) , w hi ch makes el i gi bl e foras y l um a “pe r s on w ho has been f or ced t o . . . under go i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on, orw ho has been pe r s ecut ed for

. . . ot herr es i s t ance t o a coer ci ve popul at i on c o n tr o l p ro g ra m .” T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed her appl i cat i on and t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppea ls ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed, concl udi ng, among ot her thi ngs , t hatC heng had notbeen per s ecut ed and that t he m i s t r eatm ent t o w hi ch s he w as s ubj ect ed w as u nr el at ed t o herr es i s t ance t o C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol p o licie s. W e d isa g re e w ith b o th o f th e se c o n c lu s io n s a n d w ill th e re f o re g ra n t th e p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . I. A. T he fa ct s under l y i ng C heng’ s as y l um appl i cat i on, w hi ch t he IJ foun d credi ble and w hich ar e un con t est ed, are as foll ow s. C heng w as bor n and ra i s ed i n C hi na’ s Fuj i an P r ovi nce. Fuj i an- 4- Pr ovi nce i s “know n for bei ng a pl ace w her e the one- chi l d pol i cy h a s b e e n e n f

o rc e d w ith sp e c ial v ig o r— a re p u tatio n th a t p e rsis ts s t i l l t oday

. ” Li n v. M ukas ey , 517 F. 3d 685, 688 ( 4th C i r . 2008) ( quot at i on m arks , br acke t s , and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. I n J une 1995, w hen s he w as ni net een y ear s ol d, C heng metand s t art ed dat i ng Z a ili n C h e n (“ C h e n ” ), a tw e n ty -th re e -y e a r-o ld m a n w h o liv e d in her vi l l age. C heng beca m e pr egnanti n M ar ch 1996. A l t hough C heng and C hen w ant ed t o get m arr i ed, t he t w o w er e not perm i t t ed t o w ed bec aus e theyfel l bel ow thei rvi l l age’ s age r equi r ementform arr i age— in the vi l l age, w om en w er e not p erm itted to m arry b ef

o re th e a g e o f tw en ty -th ree , an d m en w ere notal l ow ed t o be mar r i ed bef or e the age of tw enty - fi ve. I n M ay 1 9 9 6 t ow ns hi p offi ci al s di s cover ed thatC heng w a s p re g n a n t. T h e o f

f ici a ls a ttem p ted to p re ss u re C h e n g in to havi ng an abort i on, but s he r efus ed. T he off i ci al r es pons i bl e for bi r t h con tr o l a nd fami l ypl anni ng i n C heng’ s t ow ns hi p, Feng Y ing , t hen pai d a vi s i tt o C heng atherpar ent s ’ hom e, w here C heng l i ved. Y i ng i ns i s t ed thatC heng have an abort i on and i nform ed hert hati f s he di d nott erm i nat e herpr egnanc y , her r epu tat i on w oul d be damaged and s he w oul d l os e herj ob. A gain, C hen g r efused t o com ply w i t h these d e m a nd s. A p p ro x im a telyo n e m o n th late r, f o u r to w n sh ip o f

f icia ls w e n t to C heng’ s hom e t o confr ont her about t he pr egnanc y . C heng w as no t h o me a t t h e t i me o f t h e v i s i t , b u t h e r moth e r was , a nd t he offi ci al s w arned herm othert hat i f C heng di d notagr ee t o have an abort i on vol unt ar i l y , the off i ci al s w oul d for ce he rt o do s o. A s a re su lt o f

th e se th re a ts, C h e n g a n d C h e n w e n t in to h id in g in a n o th e r c it y, w h e re th e ysta y e d w ith C h e n ’s a u n t. W hi l e C heng and C hen w er e aw ay , t ow ns hi p offi ci al s r eturned- 5- t o C heng’s p arent s ’ hous e i n t he mi ddl e of the ni ght

. T he offi ci al s w er e “f

ur i ous ” w hen theydi s cover ed that C heng w as nothom e, and the y t hr eat ened he rpar ent s w i t h s ei zur e of the fa m il y ’s f

arm an d tru ck , w h ich w ere the s o u rce o f th e f am il y ’s l i vel i hood, i f C heng di d notcooper at e w i t h t he authori t i es and h av e a n ab o rt ion

. (A p p . at 73 6

. ) C heng cont i nued t o defyt he off i ci al s ’ demands and gave b irth to a d a u g h ter o n Ja n u a ry 1 , 1 9 9 7 . W h e n to w n sh ip o f f icia ls l earned thatC heng had gi ven bi r t h, t heyi m m edi at el yfol l ow ed t hrou g h on t hei rt hr eatt o confi s cat e the fa r m and truck, w hi ch C h e n g a n d h e r f

a m ily “ d e p e n d e d o n . . . to m a k e a liv in g .” (I d .) I n addi t i on, Y i ng, t he l eade r of t he t ow ns hi p’ s fami l ypl anni ng cadr e, w entt o C heng’ s r es i dence t o i nform the fam il ythat beca us e C heng had vi o lat ed the l aw byr efus i ng t o have a n abor t i on, t he ent i r e fa m i l yw as f o rbi dden fr om w or ki ng on the confi s cat ed fa r m . Y i ng als o or der ed C heng t o par t i ci pat e i n a six -m o n th re -e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m . F in a ll y , the to w n sh ip governm entor der ed thatC heng and Chen eac h be s t er i l i zed. C h e n g ’s f

a m ilym e m b e rs a ttem p ted o n m u lti p le o c c a sio n s to per s uade the off

i ci al s nott o compel t he coupl e t o be s t er i l i zed, b u t th e o f

f icia ls re jec ted th e ir re q u e sts . A f te r th e ir f

a m ily m em bers’ un successful con versat i on s w i th t ow nship offici al s, C h e n (w h o m C h e n g c h a ra c ter ize d a s y o u n g a n d tem p e ra m e n tal) engage d i n a phy s i cal al t er cat i on w i t h a governm entoffi cerand w as det ai ned. D ur i ng C hen’ s det ent i on, t he offi ci al s es cal at ed the pr es s ur e on C heng. T heyi nform ed herthati f sh e di d not compl yw i t h t hei ror der s , t he governm entw oul d t ake he rbaby fr om her , and C hen w o u ld be det ai ned form ont hs

. I f C heng- 6- r el ent ed, how ever , t heyi nform ed hert hatsh e coul d keep the b ab y , that C h en w o u ld be re lease d , an d that the c o n fisca ted f arm a n d t ru c k wou l d be re t ur n e d t o Che n g a n d h e rf a mi l y . To s w eet en the dea l , t he off i ci al s i nform ed C heng that i f s he r el ent ed i m m edi at el y , s he w oul d nothave to b e st er i l i zed, but i ns t ead c oul d have an I U D i ns ert ed. “U nders uch pr es s ur e and o u t o f

. . . c o n c e rn a b o u t th e f

a te o f [ th e ] n e w b a b ya n d [ C h e n ],” C heng ac cede d t o t he off i ci al s ’ or der s . ( I d. at73 8

. ) A s her decl ar at i on i ndi cat es , C heng thoughtt hats he coul d change her mi n d a n d e s c a p e t h e p r o c e d u r e a t t h e l a s t mi n u t e , b u t s he w as i m m edi at el y“d rag g ed” t o a mi ni van and dr i ven t o a medi cal cli n ic. (Id.) A cc o rdin g to the u n o p p o sed stat em en t i n C h en g ’s d e c lar a tio n , an IU D is m e a n t to b e in se rte d w h e n a w o m a n is havi ng herper i od; beca us e s he w as nothavi ng her per i od atthe t i m e w hen s he w as for ced t o h av e the I U D i ns ert ed, t he p ro c e d u re w a s “ v e ryp a in f u l” a n d C h e n g “ sc re a m e d ” in p a in w hen the I U D w as i ns ert ed. ( I d. ) A ft ert he pr ocedur e, s he w as r eq u i r e d t o s u b mi tt o g yn e c o l o g i c a l e x a mi n a t i o n s e v e r yth r ee m o n th s in o rd e r to v e rif yth e I U D ’ s p re se n c e . S h e f o u n d it d if f icu lt t o k e e p a ll o f

th e se a p p o in tm e n ts b e c a u se sh e h a d to w or k i n anotherci t yt o m ake e nds m eet ; w heneve r sh e mi s s ed an appoi nt m ent , s he w as as s essed a fi ne thats he coul d not a f f o r d t o p a y. O nce he rdaught erw as ol d enough, C heng s oughtt o s end h e r to d a y c a re . T h e to w n sh ip g o v e rn m e n t in f o rm e d C h e n g th a t, b ec au se she ha d di s obey ed the fa m i l ypl anni ng l aw s , her daught erw oul d notbe perm i t t ed t o att end day car e. She pl eade d w i t h t ow nsh i p offi ci al s , w ho ul t i m at el yagr eed t o admi ther daught erbut r equi r ed C heng t o payt w i ce the r egul artui t i on on a c c o u n t o f

h e r v io la tio n o f

th e p o p u la tio n c o n tr o l la w s .“A ‘s nak ehead ’ i s a professi on al sm ug gler of C hinese 1 m ig ra n ts .” L in , 5 1 7 F .3 d a t 6 8 7 n .1 (c ita tio n o m itte d ).

- 7- T here af t er , t ow ns hi p offi ci al s l earned thatone of C h e n g ’s n e ig h b o rs w a s atte m p tin g to h a v e a b a b y in h id in g in vi ol at i on of the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy . T he off i ci al s for ced the nei ghbort o under go a s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e. D u ri ng the pr ocedur e, C heng’ s nei ghbor w as t r eat ed “l i ke a pi g”— her hands and l eg s w ere t i ed, s he w as notgi ven s uffi ci ent anes t hes i a, and s he s cr eamed thr oughoutthe oper at i on. ( I d. at 7 3 9

. ) C h en g k n ew that sh e w o u ld be ex p o sed to the sam e h arm i f s he eve rat t empt ed t o have anotherchi l d, w hi ch s he i nt ended t o do. I n 2000, s he and C hen pai d s nakehe ads t o s m uggl e them ou tof C hina and i nto the U nit ed S t at es. 1 B. Shor t l yaft erherarr i val i n t he U ni t ed S t at es , C heng w as s erved w i t h a N ot i ce t o A ppearand cha r ged w i t h bei ng r emovabl e pur s uantt o 8 U

. S. C

. § 1182( a) ( 6) (C )(1) and 1182( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I )

. She appl i ed for as y l um , w i t hhol di ng of rem o v al, an d reli ef

u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ain st T o rtu re ( “C A T ”)

. O n N ovember 1, 2005, the I J convene d a hea r i ng at w hi ch C heng t es t i fi ed t o t he fa ct s r evi ew ed ab o v e. C heng f u rth e r tes tifie d th a t s h e h a d g iv e n b irth to a se c o n d c h ild sh o rtly aft erent ering t he U ni t ed St at es , and thatatt he t i m e of he r t es t i m onys he w as pr egnant w i t h a t hi r d chi l d. She t es t i fi ed that sh e f e a re d th a t if s h e w e re c o m p e lled to re tu rn to C h in a w ith t w o for ei gn- bor n chi l dr en, s he w oul d be s t er i l i zed.- 8- T he IJ, f

i ndi ng t he ent i r etyof C heng’ s t es t i m ony cr edi bl e, gr ant ed her appl i cat i on for as y l um . I n an or al deci s i on, t he I J fi r s tfo u n d t hatC heng had nots at i s fi ed herbur den of pr ovi ng t hats he w as the vi ct i m of pas tper s ecut i on— t he i nvol unt aryi ns er t i on of an I U D and the r equi r ementthatC heng s ubm i tt o r egul ar gynecol ogi cal exami nat i ons , t he IJ concl uded, w er e i ns uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. B as ed upon t he fa ctt hatC heng “w oul d r eturn t o C hi na havi ng t hr ee c hi l dr en w ith tw o o f th em b eing u n au tho ri ze d , ” h o w ev er, th e IJ c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e was a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a tC heng w o u ld b e s te ri liz e d

— a n d , th e re f o re , p e rs e c u te d , s e e 8 U .S .C . § 1101( a) ( 42)

— i f s he w er e compel l ed t o r eturn t o C hi na. ( A pp. at277. ) T he I J addi t i onal ly n o ted thatbey ond the r i s k of steri li za ti o n , C h en g fa ce d the p rosp ec t of incu rri n g sev ere economi c di s t r es s as a r es ul tof the fi nes and fe es as s oci at ed w i t h vi ol at i ng C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es . T he I J t hus g ra n ted C h e n g ’s a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , b u t c e rtifie d th e m a tter to t he B I A i n l i ghtof the dea r t h of B oar d pr ece dent on t he i s s ues ra is e d b yth e c a s e . T h e B IA , in a n o n -pre ce d en ti al o p inion , v ac ated the IJ’s o rde r an d rem an d ed the c ase fo r fu rth er p roc ee d ing s. T h e B IA fi r s tconcl uded thatm andat oryI U D i ns ert i on al one does not br i ng a per s on w ithi n t he def i ni t i on of “r efuge e” i n t he I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i t yA ct (“I N A ”)

. A ddi t i onal l y , t he B I A obs erved that , fol l ow i ng t he I J ’ s deci s i on i n thi s cas e, i thad issued t w o pr ece dent i al deci s i ons addr es s i ng t he as y l um appl i cat i ons of per s ons claimi ng t o have be en per s ecut ed p u rsu a n t to C h in a ’s o n e -c h ild p o licie s, w h ich m a d e it appr opr i at e for t he IJ t o r econs i der t he cas e i n l i ght of the r ece ntI n t hes e dec i s i ons , the B I A hel d ( 1) thata per s on has 2 been c om pel l ed to u n der go an abort i on, forpurpos es of the a sy lu m sta tu te, w h e n a re a s o n a b le p e rso n w o u ld o b jec tiv e ly vi ew t he thr eatforr efus i ng t he abor t i on t o be genui ne, and w hen t he thr eat , i f exe cut ed, w oul d i t s el f am o u n t to pe r s ecut i on, s ee I n r e T-Z- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. 163 (B I A 2007) ; and ( 2) t hatan as y l um appl i cant w ho has had a s econd chi l d i n t he U n it ed St at es m us thave evi dence t hat C hi nes e nat i onal s w i t h for ei gnb o rn chi l dr en ar e s ubj ectt o s t er i l i zat i on i n t hei rpr ovi nce of o ri g in in o rde r t o sh o w a re aso n ab le fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n , see In re C -C -, 2 3 I. & N . D e c . 8 9 9 (B IA 2 0 0 6 ). A s w e dis cuss i n d et ai l , i nfra, § 1 10 1(a) (42 ) m akes a 3 per s on el i gi bl e foras y l um i f (s ) he w as per s ecut ed on accountof “otherr es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am. ”

- 9- decis i on s. T he B IA thu s r em and ed the case t o the I J t o ad dress

2 t he i m pactof the new author i tyupon C heng’ s as y l um a p p lic a tio n . On r e ma n d , t h e I J d e n i e d Che n g ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n . He expl ai ned t hat i tw as “cur i ous and tr oubl es om e, ” ( i d. at77) , t hat the B IA h ad elec ted n o t t o ad d ress the sign ifi ca n ce o f C h en g ’s r es i s t ance t o t he I U D and the r es ul t antharm s s he enc ount er ed for purpos es of the as y l um s t atut e’ s “otherr es i s t ance ” pr ong, 3 b u t h e i n terpreted the B o ard to hav e i m p li cit ly rejected C h en g ’s ar g u m ent t hats he s at i s fi ed the “otherr es i s t ance ” cr i t er i a. § 1101( a) ( 4 2 )

. A s t o w hetherC heng had a r eas onabl e fe arof futur e per s ecut i on i n t he form of s t er i l i zat i on bas ed upon her pas texper i ence s and the fa ctt hats he then had thr ee c hi l dr en,- 10- t he I J concl uded thatt he mer e fac tt hatC heng had tw o for ei gnbor n chi l dr en w as notenough t o s at i s fyherbur den of e sta b lish in g a lik e lih o o d th a t s h e w o u ld b e ste rilize d if f o rc e d to r etur n t o C hi na. T he IJ concl uded, fi nal l y , thatC heng w as not el i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval orC A T r el i ef. T he B I A aff

i r m ed t he I J ’ s or deri n a s i ngl e- m ember , nonp re c e d e n tial d e c isio n . In its d e c isio n , the B o a rd re lied p rim a rily u p o n In re M -F -W - & L -G -, 2 4 I. & N

. D e c . 6 3 3 (B IA 2 0 0 8 ), a p rec edent i al deci s i on i s s ued af t erthe I J ’ s s econd opi ni on w her ei n t he B I A hel d ( 1) t hat t he i ns ert i on of an I U D does not cons t i tut e per s ecut i on i n and of i t s el f abs entaggr avat i ng c irc u m s ta n c e s, a n d (2 ) th a t th e re in se rtio n o f a n IU D typ ica lly i s n o tp e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r e s i s t a n c e t o a f

a mi l yp r o g r a m, s i nce w o m en i n C hi na w hos e I U D s fal l outorar e r emoved al w ay s have t he devi ces r ei ns ert ed, w hetherornottheyr es i s t ed t he fa m i l yplanni ng program . S ee i d. at64 3 (“[B ]ecause r ei ns er t i on i s a s t andar d pr ocedur e i n C hi na . . . [r ei ns ert i on of an I UD i s ] a r o u t i n e me d i c a l p r o c e d u r e t h a t i s c a r r i ed out r egar dl es s of the manner i n w hi ch t he fi r s tI U D w as r emoved or f e ll o u t.” ). A p p ly ing In re M -F -W - & L -G - t o C h en g ’s c ase , the B IA hel d t h a t t h e i n s e r t i o n o f Che n g ’ s I UD d i d n o t o c c u runder s uffi ci en tl yag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s to c o n sti tut e per s ecut i on. E v e n if th e m a n d a to ryu se o f a n I U D w e r e su f

f icie n t to con s t i tut e per s ecut i on, m or eover , the B I A concl uded thatC heng had fa il ed t o es t abl i s h a nexus betw een the ac t s compl ai ned of and herr es i s t ance t o C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pr ogr am. A s t he B I A expl ai ned, “the re spondenthas offe r ed no bas i s t o s how that the IU D w as in s e rt e d b ec au se o f h er resistanc e to C h ina’s- 11- fam i l ypol i cyand notm er el yas partof a r out i ne medi cal and f a mi l yp l a n n i n g p o l i c y . ” ( Ap p . a t5

. ) An ye c o n o mi c h a r ms C hen g ex peri enced as a r esul t of her t ow nship offici al s’ act i on s, th e B o a r d s ta ted , w e re n o t “s u b sta n tial” e n o u g h to w a rra n t a fin d ing o f p erse cu ti o n . (Id.) T h e B IA thu s d ism issed C h en g ’s a p p e a l, an d sh e th e re a f

ter f iled a tim e ly p e tit io n f

o r re v iew w ith th is C o u rt
. II. “B eca us e the B I A i s s ued an opi ni on, r athert han a sum m aryaffirm ance, w e revi ew t he B IA ’s (r at her t han the IJ’ s) deci s i on. ” Espi n o sa-C or t ez v. A t t ’ yG en. , 607 F. 3d 101, 106 (3d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted).
“ W e re v iew th e B IA ’s le g a l d e ter m in a tio n s d e n o v o , s u b jec t to t he pr i nci pl es of def

er ence art i cul at ed i n C hevr on v. N atur al R e s o u rc e s D e f

e n s e C o u n c il, I n c ., 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 , 8 4 4 (1 9 8 4 ).” K apl un v. A t t ’ yG en. , 602 F. 3d 26 0 , 265 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( ci t at i ons om i tt ed )

. W e appl ya def er ent i al “s ubs t ant i al evidence” st and ard of revi ew t o the a gen cy ’s factual fi nd i ng s. M cA ll ist er v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 4 4 F

. 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 5 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). U n d e r th is s tan d a rd , “w e m a yre v e rse o n lyif a re a so n a b le a d ju d ic a to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to c o n c l u d e to th e c o n tr a ry.” T our e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 443 F. 3d 310, 316 (3d C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on m arks , br ack et s , and ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o 8 U

. S. C

. § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) ; I

. N

. S. v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U

. S. 478, 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ). H o w e v e r, o u r d e f e re n c e u n d e r th is s ta n d a rd “ is expr es s l ycondi t i oned on s uppor ti n t he r ecor d, ” Toure , 443 F. 3d at 31 6 (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted), a n d “ [t]he B IA m a yn o t ig n o re e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t f a v o rs th e p e titio n e r.” K ang v. A t t ’ y G en. , - - - F. 3d -

- - - , 2010 W L 2680752, at*4 ( 3d- 12- C i r . 2010) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; acc or d C havarr i a v. G onzal ez, 446 F

. 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (“[T ]he req u ir em en t th at th e B IA ’s d e c isio n b e su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e is n o t an e m p ty one. ”) ; V al di vi ezo- G al damez v. A t t ’ y G en. , 502 F. 3d 285, 290- 9 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). III . I n 1996, C ongr es s pas s ed and Pr es i dentC l i nt on s i gned th e Illeg a l Im m ig ra tio n R e f o rm a n d Im m ig ra n t R e sp o n sib ili ty A ctof 1996 ( “I I R I R A ”)

. A m ong ot hert hi ngs , I I R I R A added t he fol l ow i ng l anguage t o t he then -exi s t i ng defi ni t i on of “re fu g ee ” in th e Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct (“IN A ”): [ A ] p e rso n w h o h a s b e e n f o rc e d to a b o rt a pr egnanc y or t o under go i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on, or w ho has been pe r s ecut ed forfai l ur e orr efus al t o under go s uch a p roc edur e orforot her r es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul ati on contr ol pr ogr am, s hal l be deem ed t o have be en per s ecut ed on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on, and a pe r s on w ho has a w el l founded f

eart hathe ors he w i l l be f o r c e d to u n d e rg o su c h a p ro c e d u re o r su b jec t to per s ecut i on fors uch fai l ur e, r efus al , orr es i s t ance s hal l be dee m ed t o have a w el l fo u n d ed fearof per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on. Pub. L

. N o. 104- 208, T i t
. V I

- A , § 601( a) ( 1) , 110 St at
. 3009- 546, 3009- 689 ( codi fi ed at8 U

. S

. C

. § 1101( a) ( 42) )

. C heng ar gues t hatbei ng for ced t o w ear an I U D cons t i tut es “s t er i l i zat i on” for purpos es of thi s s tat ut e, and that , al t ernat i vel y , s he w asW e re c e n tlyo u tli n e d th e b a se s f o r p ro v in g e lig ib ili ty 4 for asy l um un der this provis i on as fol l ow s:

- 13- per s ecut ed on ac countof herr es i s t ance t o C hi na’ s coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol prog ram . W e r evi ew the I I R I R A

- m odi fi ed p rov isi o n s o f th e IN A b ef o re ad d ressing the m erit s o f C h en g ’s c o n te n tio n s . A. T h e IN A g iv e s th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l th e d isc re tio n to g ran t asy lum to n o n -cit izen s w h o w ere p erse cu ted in the c o u n try of thei rnat i onal i t y or w ho have a r eas onabl e fea rof per s ecut i on on acc ountof a va r i etyof s t atut or i l yenumer at ed gr ounds

. See 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(A ). T h e IN A d o e s n o t def ine th e term “per s ecut i on, ” but i ns t ead or i ent s t he as y l um pr ovi s i ons ar ound t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e wo r d “ r e f u g e e . ” P r i o rt o 1 9 9 6 , th e I NA defined “refug ee” i n rel evan tpartas: [A ] ny per s on w ho i s out s i de anycountr yof s uch pe r s o n ’ s n a t i o n a l i t y . . . a n d who i s u n a bl e or unw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o, and i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o avai l hi m s el f orher s el f of the pr otecti o n of, th at co u n tryb ec au se o f p erse cu ti o n o r a w el l

- founded f

ea rof per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a par t i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(A ). 4Und e rt h e t e r ms o f th i s p r o v i s i o n , [ a n a s y l um appl i cant ] m ays how t hat he i s el i gi bl e foras y l um b yp ro v in g e ith e r th a t h e w a s p re v io u sly per s ecut ed on account of a st atut or i l yenumer at ed gr ound, ort hathe has a w el l

- founded f earof futur e persecut i on on accou nt of a st atutor i ly e n u m e ra ted g ro u n d . P e rse c u tio n in c lu d e s, b u t is notl i m i t ed t o, t hr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s evere t hatthey c o n s titu te a th re a t to lif e o r f re e d o m . E s pi nos a- C or t ez, 607 F. 3d at 107 ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. A n as y l um appl i cantw ho es t abl i s hes t hat( s ) he w as pr evi ous l yper s ecut ed on ac countof a s t atu tori l yenumer at ed gr ound i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on t hatthe appl i cant has a w el l

- founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. See Lukw ago v. A sh c ro ft, 3 2 9 F

. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). In the ab sen ce of

such a p res um pti on , t he ap pli cant m ust es t abl i s h a w el l

- founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on t hr ough p ro o f o f (1 ) a su b

jec tiv e f

e a r o f p e rse c u tio n (2 ) th a t is obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. See G om ez- Z ul uaga v. A t t ’ yG en. , 527 F

. 3 d 3 3 0 , 3 4 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ).

- 14- I n 1 9 9 6 , C ongr es s pas s ed I I R I R A , w hi ch, among ot her th in g s, e x p a n d e d th e IN A ’s d e f in iti o n o f th e ter m “ re f

u g e e ” to in c lu d e p e rso n s w h o h a v e b e e n su b jec ted to , o r w h o re a so n a b ly fea rbei ng s ubj ect ed t o, per s ecut i o n as a r es ul tof a c oer ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am. A s w e r ece nt l yex p lai ned, C ongr es s amended § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A) “ forthe expr es s purpos e of o v e r tu r n i n g t h e BI A’ s d e c i s i o n i n M a t t e ro f Ch a n g , 2 0 I

. & N.- 15- D ec. 38 ( B

. I

. A 1989)

. ” L i n- Z heng v. A t t ’ y . G en. , 557 F. 3d 147, 151 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. In C h ang, the B I A det erm i ned thati tcoul d not concl ude “thati m pl ement at i on of t he ‘ one coupl e, one chi l d’ pol i cy i n and of i t s el f, even t o the ext ent that i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i ons m ayoccur , i s per s ecut i on orcr eat es a w el l

- founde d fearof per s ecut i on ‘ on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part icul ars oci al g rou p , o r p o li ti ca l o p inion

. ’” 2 0 I. & N

. D ec . at 4 4

. T h e B IA r eas oned t hat C hi na’ s fami l y pl anni ng pol i ci es w er e “s ol el yt i ed t o con t r o l l i n g p o p u l a t i o n ” a n d wer e n o t“ a g u i s e f o ra c t i ng agai ns tpeopl e forr eas ons pr ot ect ed bythe A ct , ” meani ng t hat a per s o n s ubj ect ed t o s uch pol i ci es coul d notbe cons i der ed a v ic tim o f p e rs e c u tio n . Id

. C o n g re ss c o n c lu d e d th a t th is re a so n in g w a s “ u n d u ly r es t r i ct i ve, ” and e xpanded t he defi ni t i on of “r efuge e” t o i ncl ude c e rta in v ictim s o f

p e rse c u tio n re late d to c o e rc iv e f a m ily pl anni ng and popul at i on contr ol p o li ci es . H

. R

. R ep. N o. 1 0 4 -4 6 9 (I), a t 1 7 4 (1 9 9 6 ). C o n g re ss m a n C h risto p h e r H . S m ith s ucci nct l ys um m ar i zed the expa nded def i ni t i on of “r efuge e” by expl ai ni ng t hat“[f

] or ced a bor t i on, fo r c e ds t er i l i zat i on, and other sev ere puni s hm ent s i nfl i ct ed on r es i s t er s t o . . . [C hi na’s popul at i on contr ol] pr ogr am ar e per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on. ” 142 C ong. R ec. H 2589- 01 ( dai l yed. M ar . 21, 1 9 9 6 ) ( c o m m e n ts o f

R e p . S m ith ). A s t he B I A has s i nce e xpl ai ned, the I I R I R A

- amended defi ni t i on of “r efuge e” c r eat es four new cat egor i es of r efuge es w ho ar e el igible foras y l um : ( 1) “per s on[s ] w ho ha[ve ] been for ced t o aborta pr egnanc y , ” ( 2) “p erso n[s ] w ho ha[ve ] been forced .

. . t o und ergo i nv olunt aryst eri l i zat i on , ” (3) “person[s]- 16- . . . w ho ha[ve ] been per s ecut ed forfai l ur e orr efus al t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e orforot herr es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on c o ntr ol pr og ram , ” and (4) “person[s] w ho ha[v e] .

. . a w ell founded f

eart hat[they ] w i l l be for ce d to under go s uch a pr ocedur e ors ubj ectt o per s ecut i on fors uch fa i l ur e, r efus al , or r e s i s t a n c e . ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) ; s e e a l s o I n r e M- F

- W- & L

- G

- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at635. “T h e fi r s tand s econd cat egor i es of al i ens ar e ‘ deemed’ b y sect i on 601( a) of the I I R I R A t o be re fugee s , ” I n r e M

- F- W

- & L

- G

- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at635— t hati s , under t he pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e, a per s on w ho has been f

or ced t o under go ei t heran ab or t i on or s t er i l i zat i on pur s uantt o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am is a u to m a tica llye lig ib le f o r a s y lu m . T h e th ird a n d f o u rth cat egor i es m ake a s y l um avai l abl e t o an i m m i gr ant w ho has not under gone compel led abort i on ors t er i l i zat i on i f the appl i cant can s how pas tper s ecut i on forfai l i ng orr ef u sing t o under go s uch a pr ocedur e orforot h erw i s e r es i s t i ng t he popul at i on con t r o l p r o g r a m, o ra wel l

- f o u n d e d f

e a ro f a b o r t i o n, ste riliza tio n , o r p e rse c u tio n o n a c c o u n t o f su c h f a ilu re , ref

u sa l, o r r e s is ta n c e . C heng arg u es t hats he i s el i gi bl e foras y l um underthe s econd, t hi r d, and fourt h cat egor i es . She cont end s thatbei ng f o r c e d t o wea r a n I UD i s t a n t a mou n t t o s t e r i l i z a t i o n , and t hat even i f i tw ere not , she w as previ ou sl ypersecut ed an d has a w el l

- founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof her r e s i s t a n c e t o C h i n a ’ s c o e r c i v e p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l p o l i c i e s . We cons i dert hes e cont ent i ons i n turn.W e ar e unper s uaded by t he R es pondent ’s sugges t i on 5 t hatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dert hi s i s s ue bec aus e i tw as not r ai s ed bef

or e the B I A

. T he R es pond en t is corr ectt hatan i m m i gr antm us t“r ai s e orexhaus t hi s or herr emedi es as t o eac h c laim o r g ro u n d f

o r re lief [ b e f o re th e B IA ] if

h e o r sh e is to p re se rv e th e rig h t o f

ju d icia l r e v iew o f th a t c laim ,” a n d th a t th is

- 17- B. As we n o t e d a b o v e , u n d e r t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f t h e I NA, i f a non- ci t i zen has bee n compel l ed t o under go an abort i on or s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e, s he i s “dee m ed” t o have be en per s ecut ed on acc ount of pol i t i cal opi ni on and nee d notpr es entevi dence of t he per s ecut or ’ s m ot i ve. See 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A )

. C heng a rg u e s th a t b e in g c o m p e lled to w e a r a n IU D a n d b e in g f o rc e d to s ubm i tt o r egul argynecol ogi cal exami nat i ons cons t i tu te s s t er i l i zat i on beca us e i t i nhi bi t s a w om an’ s capa ci t yt o r epr oduce foras l ong as t he I U D r emai ns i n pl ace . T hati s , beca us e under C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es t he I U D i s t o r emai n i n pl ace t hr oughouta w om an’ s r epr oduct i ve l i fe, C heng arg ues t hat f o rc e d IU D in se rtio n is ta n tam o u n t to ste riliza tio n a n d is t h e r e f o r e p e rs e p e r s e c u t i o n u n d e rth e I NA. S e e i d

. T h e BI A, i nt erpr et i ng t he t erm “st er i l i zat i on” i n § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) , has h e ld o th e rw ise , c o n c lu d in g th a t b e in g f o rc e d to w e a r a n IU D is di ffe r enti n ki nd fr om bei n g for ced t o under go a s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e. See I n r e M

- F- W

- & L

- G

- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at636. F o r t h e fo ll o w ing rea so n s, w e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA ’s in terp re tatio n o f

th e sta tu to ryter m “ s te riliza tio n ” is e n tit led to defer ence and thatC heng’ s I U D

- i ns ert i on- i s - s t er i l i zat i on ar gum enti s unavai l i ng. 5w ai ve rru l e i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

. Hox h a v . Hol d e r , 5 5 9 F. 3 d 157, 1 5 9 & n . 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). H ow ever , w hi l e C heng di d not ar gue t hi s i s s ue w hen herappea l w as befor e t he B I A forthe s econd t i m e, heri ni t i al br i ef t o the B I A ( w hen t h e IJ ce r t i fi ed the ca s e t o t he B oar d) cert ai nl ycan be r ead t o r ai s e thi s i s s ue. I n par t i cul ar , C heng ar gued i n her i ni t i al br i ef that“[o] ne of the k eyi s s ues pr es ent ed fort he B oar d’ s det erm i nat i on i s w hether t he for ced I U D i ns ert i on and gynecol ogi cal exams a r e s uffi ci enti n i t s el f [s i c] fora fi ndi ng of p a st p e rse c u tio n ,” a n d th e B o a rd a d d re ss e d (a n d re jec ted ) th is a rg u m e n t in its f

irst o p in io n . (A p p . at 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (e m p h a sis added)

. ) W e have expl ai ned t hat “s o l ong as a n imm i gr at i on pet i t i oner m akes s om e ef for t , how everi ns uffi ci ent , t o pl ace the B oar d on not i ce of

a s t r ai ght forw ard i s s ue bei ng r ai s ed on appea l , a pet i t i oneri s deemed t o have e xhaus t ed her a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies ,” a n d C h e n g ’s in iti a l su b m iss io n is m o re th a n su f

f icie n t to sa tisf

yth is u n d e m a n d in g sta n d a rd

. L in v. A t t ’ yG en. , 543 F. 3d 114, 121 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng J os eph v. A t t ’ yG en. , 465 F. 3d 123, 126 ( 3d C i r . 2006) )

. N orw as C heng r equi red to r ear gue the i s s ue bef or e the B oar d aft erthe IJ’s second dec i s i on, gi ven thatt he B oar d al r eadyhad the oppor tuni t yt o addr es s t he i s s ue i n t he fi r s t i ns t ance . See Popal v . G o n z a le s , 4 1 6 F .3 d 2 4 9 , 2 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

- 18- In i ts rec en t p rec ed en ti al o p inion , In re M -F -W - & L -G -, t he B I A expl ai ned thatal t hough “[o]ne coul d ar gue thatthe perpetual us e of a n I U D , oranyot herbi r t h co n tr o l method, t hroug ho ut a w om an’s chi l d b earin g y ears un t i l m eno pau se eff ect i vel yr es ul t s i n a form of st er i l i zat i on, ” t he pl ai n l anguage a n d l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r yo f t h e s t a tu t e i n d i c a t e d t h a tf o r c e d I UD- 19- i nsert i on w as not per s e persecut i on . Id. T he B IA l oo ked fi rs t t o the st atutoryl ang uag e, reas on i ng as fol l ow s: [T]he verb t o “s t eri li ze” i s defi ned as “t o m ake s t er i l e, ” w hi ch means “[i ] ncapa bl e of s exual r e p r o d u c t i o n . ” W e b s t e r ’ s I I New Ri v e r s i de U n iv e rsity D iction ary1 1 3 7 (1 9 9 4 ). T h is defini t i on m akes cl earthe perm anenc yof the s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e— i

. e. , t hat itl eave s one i ncap able of having chi l dren— and l eads u s to r ej ectt he ar gum ent t hat I U D us e s houl d be tr eat ed as t he equi val entof s t er i l i zat i on. Id . T h e B IA e x p lain e d th a t an IU D is “ a m e th o d o f b irth c o n tro l” th a t, in c o n tra st w ith th e p e rm a n e n c y o f ste riliza tio n , is “a t empora r ym eas ur e meantt o pr ovi de forb irt h pl anni ng and no t t o r e mov e a l l p o s s i b i l i t y o f f u tu r e b i r t h o p p o r tu n i t i e s . ” I d. ( emph a s i s o mi tt e d )

. Th e Boa r d c o n f i r me d i t s c o n s t ru c t i o n of t he s t atut or yl angua g e byl ooki ng t o I I R I R A ’ s l egi s l at i ve h ist o ry . A s the B o ard ex p lai n ed , “C o n g ress w as c learlyaw are of C hi na’ s us e of I U D s as a bi r t h contr ol m ethod s epar at e fr om steri li za ti o n b ec au se b o th term s w ere u sed in d esc ri b ing C h ina’s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. I f C ongr es s had i nt ended t o i ncl ude for ced I U D i ns ert i on among the bas es for p er se ref

u g ee statu s (as itd id w ith ab o rt ion an d steri li za ti o n ), t he B I A r eas oned, t hen i tcoul d have done s o expr es s l y . See i d. “I t i s harm of [the] m agni tude and pe r m anenc y[of a bor t i on and s t er i l i zat i on] t hatC ongr es s tr eat ed as aut om at i cal l yamount i ng t o qual i fy i ng per s ecut i on. ” I d. at641. O u ra n a l y s i s o f w h e t h e r o r n o t t o d e f e rt o I n r e M- F

- W-- 20- & L- G-

— a p r e c e d e n t i a l o p i n i o n o f t h e BI A i n t e rp r e t i ng t he s t atut e thatt he agenc y i s char ged t o i m pl ement

— i s governed by t he fa m i l i art w o- s t ep i nqui r yof C hevr on. See, e. g. , K apl un, 602 F .3 d a t 2 6 5 . F irst, w e a ss e ss “ w h e th e r C o n g re ss h a s d ire c tly sp o k en to the p rec ise q u esti o n at i ssu e.” N d ay sh im iy e v . A tt ’y G en. , 557 F. 3d 124, 129 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng C hevr on, 467 U

. S

. at84 2). If the p l ai n m eaning o f t he st atute i s unam biguou s, then the statu tory text co n tr o ls, an d n o d ef ere n ce to the ag en cy ’s i nt erpr et at i on of thatt exti s cal l ed for

. See C hang v. I

. N

. S. , 119 F. 3d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 6 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 7 )

. I f , h o wev e r , “ b ye mpl o y i ng tra d iti o n a l to o ls o f

sta tu to ryc o n stru c tio n ” w e a re u n a b le to arr i ve atan unambi guous r eadi ng of t he s t atut oryl anguage , L ee v. A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 218, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) , t hen “w e pr ocee d t o t he s econd s t ep and determ i ne w hethert he B IA ’s readi ng of the provis i on i s a r eas on a b l e o n e . ” Nda y s h i mi y e , 5 5 7 F. 3 d a t1 2 9 ( c i t a t i on om i t t ed). If the ag ency ’s i nterpret at i on i s reas on able, “w e m ust letthe in te rp retati o n stan d

. ” Id

. T o d eterm ine th at th e B o ard has r eas onabl ycons t rued the s t atut e, w e “ne ed notconcl ude that the agency con struct i on w as t he only on e i t perm i ssi blyc o u ld have a dopt ed .

. . oreven the r eadi ng t he court w oul d have r eac hed i f the ques t i on i ni t ial l yhad ar i s en i n a j udi ci al p roc ee d ing

. ” C h ev ron , 4 6 7 U

. S

. at 8 4 3 n . 1 1 (cit ati o n s o m itted); s ee a l s o C hang, 119 F. 3d at 1060 ( “[W ] e w i l l nots ubs t i tut e our ow n j udgm entfort hatof the B I A , butw e mustal s o r ej ectany i nterpre t at i on byt he B I A thati s ‘ arbi t r ary , capr i ci ous , or mani fe s t l yc on t r a r yt o the s t a tut e . ’ ” ( qu ot i ng Chev r on , 46 7 U. S. a t 8 4 4 ))

. Turni ng t o t he fi r s t s t e p of t he i nq ui r y , w e m ust det erm i ne w hetherornot“C ongr es s has di r ect l ys poken t o t he- 21- pr eci s e ques t i on ati s s ue, ” C hevr on, 467 U

. S. at842

— that q u esti o n b eing w h ethe r § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )’s u s e o f th e term
“ i n v o l u n t a r ys t e r i l i z a t i o n ” e n c o m p a s s e s c o m p e l l e dl i f e l o n g I UD us age. C heng ar gues thatthe t erm “inv o lunt arys t er i l i zat i on” unambi guous l yi ncl udes for ced I U D i ns ert i on, cont endi ng that w om en w ho have be en compel l ed t o w earI U D s have unde r gone “an i nvol unt arypr ocedure w hi ch l eave s them i ncapa bl e of s exual r epr oduct i on. ” ( Pet ’ rB r . 31. ) A ccor di ng t o C heng, t he fac t t hat C ongr es s di d not s peci fy any par t i cul artyp e of s t er i l i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e ( s u c h a s tu b a l l i g a t i o n , v a s e c t o my , or h y sterecto m y ) i n d icates tha t C o n g ress m ea n t fo r th e term “s t er i l i zat i on” t o encompas s anypr ocedur e thatr ender s a per s on i ncapa bl e of r epr oduct i on, i ncl udi ng fo rce d I U D i ns ert i on. B eca us e underC hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, compel l ed I U D us age i s acc om pani ed byr egul argynecol ogi cal exami nat i ons t o m oni t orthe cont i nued pr es ence of the devi ce, C heng ar gues t hat for ced I U D i ns ert i on l eave s a w om an p e rm a n e n tlyin c a p a b le o f r e p ro d u c tio n a n d th u s is u n a m b ig u o u s ly a f

o rm o f s te ri liz a tio n . W e c a n n o t ag re e w ith C h e n g th a t “ C o n g re ss h a s d ire c tly s poken t o t he pr eci s e ques t i on” of w het h er st er i l i zat i on encompas s es t he com pel l ed use of a bi r t h contr ol devi ce l i ke an IU D

. C h ev ron , 4 6 7 U

. S

. at 84 2

. A s the B IA rea so n ed in In re M

- F- W

- & L

- G

- , t he pl ai n m eani ng of t he w or d “s t er i l i zat i on” does notunambi guous l yencompas s te m por arym ethods of i nhi bi t i ng a p er s on’ s r epr oduct i on s uch as t he for ced us e of I U D s and otherbi r th contr ol devi ces . W ebs t er ’ s defi nes t he w or d “s t er i l i zat i on” as “a pr ocedur e by w hi ch a human orother an im al is m ad e i n ca p ab le o f rep rod u cti o n

— co m p are C A S T R A T IO N , S P A Y IN G

. ” W eb ster’s N ew Int’l D ict ion aryI n d e e d , t a k e n t o i t s e x t r e me , Che n g ’ s a t t e mpt t o r ead 6 the p erm an en cy o u t o f “steril izati o n ” w o u ld lead to su ch b izarre pr opos i t i ons as cons i der i ng t he us e of a nycon tr ace pt i ve ( s uch as a condom) t o be “s t er i l i zat i on, ” sinc e al l contr ace pt i ves i nh i bitrepr od ucti on . A t t he ri sk of st at i ng t he ob vious, t he u se of a c ont r ace pt i ve or di nar i l y w oul d not amount t o s t er i l i zat i on, s i nce “ [s ] t er i l i zat i on i s . . . perm anent [] and i r r epar abl e” a nd the u se o f a c o n tra c e p tiv e

— e v e n a n IU D , w h ich is d e sig n e d to rem ain in p lace u n ti l rem o v ed b ya p h y sici an

— is no t. G erb er, 291 F. 3d at622. A l t hough t he ques t i on of w hetherm oni t or ed, l i fel on g u se of an IU D can be co nsi dered st eri l i zat i on (because i ti s , i n eff

ect , a perm anentors emi

- perm anentform of c o n tra c e p tio n ) p re se n ts a c lo se r c a ll, u n d e r C h e v ro n , clo se c a lls

- 22- 2 2 3 8 (3 d e d . 1 9 9 3 ). O n its f a c e , “s ter ili z a tio n ” a p p e a rs to inclu d e o n lyp roc ed u res tha t perm an en tl yeli m inate a p erso n ’s r epr oduct i ve ca paci t y , as t he di ct i onaryr efer ence s t o s uch perm ane n ta n d i rr e v e r s i bl e pr ocedur es as cas t r at i on and s pay i ng, and the us e of t he phr as e “made i ncapa bl e, ” make cl ear . I d. ; s ee G erberv. H i ckman, 291 F. 3d 617, 622 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( en banc ) ( “St er i l i zat i on i s . . . perm anent [] and i r r epar abl e. ”) ; R obi ns on v . P a r r i s h , 7 2 0 F

. 2 d 1 5 4 8 , 1 5 5 0 ( 1 1 t h Ci r . 19 83 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( “[S] t er i l i zat i on . . . [i s a pr ocedur e t hat r es ul t s i n] t he perm anent i n a b i l i t yt o h a v e c h i l d r e n . ” ) ( q u o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t a t i on o m itte d ). T h e f o rc e d in se rtio n o f

a n IU D c e rta in lyd o e s n o t f a ll unambi guous l yw i t hi n thi s cat egory , s i nce an IU D can be re m o v e d a n d its e f

f e c t u p o n a w o m a n ’s re p ro d u c ti v e c a p a c ity el i m i nat ed. C heng att empt s t o u n derm i ne thi s di s t i nct i on by

6r es ol vi ng ambi guous s t atut oryt erm s m aybe for t he agency , not th e c o u rt , to d e c id e .

- 23- n o tin g th a t it is po ss ib le (a lth o u g h v e ry d if f icu lt) to u n d o c e rta in s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur es , su ch as tubal l i gat i on, and thatthe perm anenc e of I U D i ns ert i on i n C hi na i s al l butguar ant eed by t h e r e q u i r e me n to f

r e g u l a rg yn e c o l o g i c a l e x a mi n a t i o n s . At m o st, h o w ev er, C h en g ’s arg u m en t sug g ests that the term “s t er i l i zat i on” i s ambi guous w hen appl i ed att he mar gi ns t o s uch n o n - o b v i o u s e x a mp l e s a s s e mi

- p e r ma n e n ta n d mo n i t o r e d I UD i nsert i on s, and w hen a st atutoryprovisio n i s am biguou s, C h e v ro n d icta tes th a t w e d e f e r to th e a g e n c y ’s r e a s o n a b le cons t ruct i on of t hat pr ovi s i on. See, e. g. , N day s hi m i y e, 557 F. 3d a t 1 2 9

. W e conc l ude thatthe t erm “i nvol unt ary s t er i l i zat i on” by defi ni t i on cont empl at es a perm anenti nhi bi t i on of r epr oduct i ve c a p a c ity , an d w e f

in d th a t C o n g re ss h a s n o t d ire c tlysp o k e n to t he pr eci s e ques t i on of w hether c o m p el l ed I U D i ns ert i on, pl us m oni t or i ng, fal l s w i t hi n the am bi tof the s t atut oryt erm . See H uang v. H ol der , 591 F. 3d 124, 129 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( concl udi ng att he fi r s ts t ep of the C hevr on anal y s i s that“C ongr es s has not det erm ined w hether

. . . an I U D i ns ert i on cons t i tut es steri li za ti o n ”). T u r n i n g t o t h e s e c o n d s t e p o f t h e Ch e v r o n a n a l y s i s , we f u rth e r c o n c lu d e th a t th e B IA ’s in terp re tatio n o f th e sta tu te is r eas onabl e and e nt i t l ed t o defe r ence . A n agenc y ’ s i nt erpr et at i on o f th e st atute i ti s charged w i t h ad m i nis t eri ng i s ent i t l ed to defe r ence i f i t“re p rese nt s a r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on of- 24- confl i ct i ng pol i ci es t hat w er e comm i t t ed t o t he agenc y ’ s car e by t he s t atut e . . . unl es s i tappea r s fr om the s t atut e ori t s l egi s l at i ve h isto ryth a t th e a c c o m m o d a tio n is no t o n e th a t C o n g re ss w o u ld have s anct i oned. ” C hevr on, 467 U

. S. at845 ( quot i ng U ni t ed S ta te s v . S h im e r, 3 6 7 U .S . 3 7 4 , 3 8 3 (1 9 6 1 ))

. H e re , the B o a rd ’s d e c isio n th a t f o rc e d IU D in se rtio n is i n s u f f i c i e n t l y p e r m a n e n tt o c o n s t i tu t e s t e r i l i z a t i o n i s n o to n l y a perm i s s i bl e cons t ruct i on of t he st atut e’ s t erm s , but i tal s o fi nds su p p o rt in the leg isl ati v e h ist o ryo f IIR IR A

. A s the B IA r eas oned, t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryof I I R I R A r efl ect s an under s t andi ng t hat s t er i l i zat i on and bi r t h contr ol m ethods ( s uch as I U D s ) ar e di s t i n ct m eans of i nhi bi t i ng popul at i on gr ow t h. S ee In r e M -F-W - & L -G -, 24 I. & N

. D ec. at63 6 (“C on gress w as cl ear l y aw ar e of C hi na’ s us e of I U D s as a b ir th co n tr ol m ethod s epar a t e f

r o m s t er i l i zat i on beca us e both t erm s w er e us ed i n des cr i bi ng C h ina ’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . ” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed))

. F or exam ple, t est i m on ybefo re the H ou se S u b c o m m itt e e o n In te r n a tio n a l O p e ra tio n s a n d H u m a n R ig h ts cat al ogued the n u m b erof s t er i l i zat i ons , I U D i ns ert i ons , and a b o r t i o n s i n a g i v e n y e a r , s u g g e s t i n g th a ts t e r i l i z a t i o n s a n d I UD i ns er t i ons ar e ca t egor i cal l y d ist i nctm eans of enf or ci ng a popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am. See C oer ci ve Popul at i on C ont r ol i n C hi na: H ear i ngs B efor e the Subcomm

. on I nt ’ l O per at i ons a n d H u m a n R ig h ts o f

th e H . C o m m . o n In t’l R e latio n s, 1 0 4 th C o n g . 8 (1 9 9 5 ). C h e n g h a s id e n tifie d n o c o n tr a rya u th o rity su g g e stin g th a t C o n g re ss e q u a te d f o rc e d IU D in se rtio n w ith s te ri liz a tio n . I n s u m , w e conc l ude thatt he B I A ’ s cons t ruct i on of the s t atut e i s r eas onabl e and ent i t l ed t o defe r ence . See H uang, 591In L i v . A tt o rne y G en era l, 4 0 0 F

. 3 d 1 5 7 , 1 5 9 (3d C ir

. 7 2 0 0 5 ), w e h e ld th a t th e p e tit io n e r h a d b e e n su b jec ted to ec o n o m ic pe rsec u ti o n o n ac co u n t of h is r esistan c e to C h ina’s

- 25- F

. 3 d at 12 9 -30 (“U n d er step tw o , w e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA ’s concl us i on t hatan i nvol unt aryI U D i ns erti o n i s notan i nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on i s perm i s s i bl e. T he B I A ’ s r eas oni ng t hats teri l i zat i on m akes one perm anent l yi ncapa bl e of ha vi ng c h ild r e n , w h e re a s a n IU D is a tem p o ra rym e a su re , is r e a s o n a b l e . ” )

. We t h u s r e j e c tCh e n g ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a tI UD i ns er t i on i s t ant amount t o s t er i l i zat i on. C. T h e f a c t th a t IU D in se rtio n is n o t eq u iv a len t to ste riliza tio n d o e s n o t af

f e c t th e re m a in d e r o f

C h e n g ’s a rg u m e n t, w hi ch foc us es on h er m or e per s uas i ve cont ent i on t hats he w as per s ecut ed, nots t er i l i zed. I n par t i cul ar , C heng ar gues thats he qual i f i e s f oras y l um under§ 1101( a) ( 42) ’ s pr ong author i zi ng t he A t t or neyG ener al t o gr antas y l um to a non- ci t i zen w ho w as per s ecut ed on accountof the as y l um appl i cant ’ s “other r e s i s t a n c e t o a c o e r c i v e p o p u l a t i o n c o n tr o l p r o g r a m . ” We r evi ew t he B I A ’ s appr oach to “ otherr es i s t ance ” cl ai m s , and expl ai n w hyt he B oar d’ s deci s i on i n thi s cas e i s nots uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , in tu rn b e lo w . 1. W e have not , t o dat e, had occ as i on t o addr es s t he “other r es i s t ance ” pr ovi s i on of § 1101( a) ( 42) i n s i gni fi cantdet ai l , and 7fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es , butourfocus i n t h at c ase w as upon w hethert he pet i t i onerhad s how n pas teco n o mi c p e r s e c u t i o n, not on t he r equi r ement s fores t abl i s hi n g an “otherr es i s t ance ” p e rs e c u tio n c la im

. N o cour t appea r s t o have deci ded an “otherr es i s t ance ” 8 cas e s i nce the B I A deci ded I n r e M -F -W - & L

- G

- . B efor e the B I A ’ s deci s i on i n t hatcase , the m os ti n- depth t r eatm entof the “otherr es i s t ance ” l anguage w as t he N i nth C i r cui t ’ s en banc d ec isi o n in L i v . A sh cro ft, 3 5 6 F

. 3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 6 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ), w hi ch hel d t hatw her e “a y oung w om an w ho announce d her o p p o sitio n to g o v e rn m e n t p o p u latio n c o n tro l p o licie s a n d is t her eaf t ers ubj ect ed t o a for ced gynecol ogi cal exam and t hr eat ened w it h futur e abort i on, s t er i l i zat i on of herboy fr i end, and arr es t , ” per s ecut i on on acc ountof “o therr es i s t ance ” has been e s t abl i s hed. T he N i nth C i r cui temphasi zed the “c rude and ag g ressive ” a n d “ra p e-li k e” n ature o f th e exam i nat i on p roc ed u re i n concl udi ng t hatt he pet i t i onerhad bee n per s ecut ed on ac count of herr es i s t ance t o t he fami l y pl anni ng l aw s . I d. at 1158 & n. 4.

- 26- i ndeed, veryfew cour t s have de ci ded ca s es bas ed upon t he “otherr es i s t ance ” l anguage . T he B I A , how ever , di s cus s ed the 8 pr ovi s i on i n depth i n I n r e M

- F- W

- & L

- G

- ( t he s ame 2008 deci s i on, di s cus s ed s upr a, i n w hi ch the B o ar d hel d t hatfor ced I U D i ns er t i on i s nott ant am ountt o s t er i l i zat i on)

. I n thatcas e, t he pet i t i oner ’ s ot herr es i s t ance cl ai m w as bas ed upon t h e fact t hats he re m oved an I U D t hat had bee n i ns ert ed af t ert he bi r t h of herfi r s tchi l d; w hen the author i t i es di s cover ed thatthe I U D had b e e n r e mo v e d , t h e yt o o k th e p e t i t i o n e rt o h a v e a n I UD r ei ns er t ed af

t er det ai ni ng her for t hr ee day s . 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at- 27- 6 3 4 -3 5

. E val uat i ng t he p eti ti oner ’ s cl ai m thats he qual i fi ed for as y l um bas ed upon herr es i stan ce t o the fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i ci es , t he B I A expl ai ned that , unl i ke per s ons w ho have be en s ubj ect ed t o for ced a bo rt ion ors t er i l i zat i on, w ho underthe s t atut e have per s e bee n s ubj ect ed t o per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on, s ee § 1101( a) ( 42) , a per s on cl ai m i ng t o h ave been per s ecut ed due t o her r es i s t ance t o a popul at ion cont r ol pol i cym us ts t i l l pr ove thats he w as per s ecut ed and thatt he per s ecut i on w as on acc ount of s uch r es i s t ance . Speci fi cal l y , t he B oar d hel d t hati n or dert o pr ocee d underthe “otherr es i s t ance ” pr ovi s i on, t he as y l um appl i cantm us t pr ove t hat“( 1) s he r es i s t ed C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy , ( 2) s he has been pe r s ecut ed ( or has a w el l

- founded f

earof per s ecut i on) , and ( 3) the per s ecut i on w as orw oul d be bec aus e of the re s pondent ’ s r es i s t ance t o the pol i cy . ” I n r e M

- F- W

- & L

- G

- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at637 ( ci t at i on o m itte d ). T he B IA i nter pret ed the fi rs t of these pr o ngs

— r es i s t ance

— br oadl y , expl ai ni ng t hatact s s uch as r emo v i n g a n I UD o rr e f u s i n g t o a t t e n d a g yn e c o l o g i cal app ointm ent s at i sfyt he st atutoryel em ent of res i st ance “ becau se s uch ac t s , w hi l e ar guabl ynotcompri s i ng act i ve orfor cef ul o p p o sitio n to C h in a ’s f a m il yp lan n in g p o licy , w o u ld c e rta in ly t hw ar tt he goal s of the pl an and be vi ew ed w i t h di s favorby Ch i n e s e o f

f i c i a l s i mp l e me n t i n g t he pl a n . ” I d

. a t6 3 8

. By contr as t , t he B I A expl ai ned that“s i m pl e grudgi ng compl i ance ” w ith th e p o p u latio n c o n tro l p ro g ra m w o u ld n o t am o u n t to re s is ta n c e . Id

.- 28- A s to th e sec o n d p ron g

— p erse cu ti o n

— the B o ard expl ai ned that“the w or ds ‘ per s ecut ed’ and ‘pe r s ecut i on’ i n [the I I R I R A

- m o d ifi ed l anguage w i t hi n t he I N A ’ s defi ni t i on of ‘r efug ee’] deri ve thei r m eaning fro m the st and ard use of these ter m s in c o n tex ts o th e r th a n th o se re late d to p o p u latio n c o n tro l. T heydo not en

joys om e s peci al s epar at e meani ng w i t hi n the cont extof [popul at i on contr ol ] cas es . ” I d. at639. A s s ess i ng w h e t h e r c o m p e l l e d I U D i n s e r t i o n i n a n d o f i t s e l f i s p e r s e c u t o r y, t he B oar d not ed thatal t hough t he i nvol unt aryi ns ert i on of an IU D is i n tru siv e , th e p ro c e d u re is typ ica lly p a in les s an d its eff ect s ar e t empora r y . T he B oar d expl ai ned: [S] i m pl yr equi r i ng a w o m an t o us e an I U D , and o ther m o re r out i ne m ethods o f C h ina’s i m pl ement at i on of i t s fami l ypl anni n g pol i cy , do n o t g e n e ra llyrise to th e lev e l o f h a rm re q u ire d to es t abl i s h per s ecut i on . . . . [E]xa m pl es of r out i ne act s i m pl ement i ng C hi na’ s fami l ypl a n n i n g pol i cy th a t ar e la c k in g in h a rm su f f icie n t to c o n stitu te per s ecut i on i ncl ud e rei ns ert i on of an I U D aft er t he re m oval of an I U D , fi nes forhavi ng r emoved t he IU D t hatar e notexce s s i ve, r egul ar l yr equi r ed gynecol ogi cal exams, and otherr out i ne fi nes and th re a ts f o r d is o b e y in g th e p o lic y . I d. at640- 41 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T he B IA m ade c l eart hat h a v i n g a n I UD i n s e r t e d c o u l d a mount t o p e r s e c u t i o n i n s o me s i tuat i ons , buti texpl ai ned thati n or der“t o r i s e t o the l evel of harm nece s s aryt o cons t i tut e ‘ per s ecut ion, ’ t he i ns ert i on of an I U D m us ti nvol ve aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s . ” I d. at642. T he B oar d di d notel abor at e upon the ci r cumst ances t hatw oul d be- 29- s uffi ci ent l yaggr avat i ng t o m ake f or ced I U D i ns ert i on per s ecut or yi n and of i t s el f. Fi nal l y , t he B I A expl ai ned t hatt her e mustbe a ne xus bet w ee n t h e p e r s e c u t i o n a n d th e p e r s o n ’ s r e s i s t a n c e t o t he popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am i n or derfora non- ci t i zen t o qual i fy foras y l um , and that i n t he cont ext of I U D i ns ert i on, t hi s nexus m ayb e d ifficu ltto es tablish. Se e id. at 6 4 2 -4 3

. T h e B o ard r eas oned: T he q u e s t i o n r a i s e d h e r e a n d i n ma n y“ o t her r es i s t ance ” ca s es i s w hether t he re i ns ert i on of an I U D w as beca us e of the al i en’ s r es i s t ance t o the in se rtio n o f

th e f irst IU D , o r b e c a u se o f its rem ov al , or m erel ybecau se r ei nsert i o n i s a s t andar d pr ocedur e i n C hi na. I f t he l at t er , an al i en m aybe unabl e t o m eetherbur den of e s t abl i s hi ng t hatt he I U D i ns ert i on w as “for , ” or b eca us e of, h e r re sis tan c e to C h in a ’s p o licie s. R a th e r, it w o u ld th e n b e a ro u tin e m e d ica l p ro c e d u re th a t is carr i ed outr egar dl es s of t he manneri n w hi ch the fi r s t I U D w as r emoved orfel l out
. T hi s w oul d not be s uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h t he nexus r equi r ed under se c tio n 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ) o f

th e A c t. Id . at 6 4 3 . T h e B o a rd c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p e tit io n e r ha d m e re ly e x p e rie n c e d th e ro u tin e im p lem e n tatio n o f C h in a ’s f

a m ily pl anni ng pol i cy ; t he for ced i ns ert i on of an I U D i n thatcas e w as i ns uffi ci ent l yharm ful t o co n st i tut e per s ecut i on and w as not r el at ed t o t he pet i t i oner ’ s r es i s t ance t o t he pol i cy . See i d. at644.- 30- 2. A p p ly in g th e f

ra m e w o rk o f

In re M -F -W - & L -G - to th is cas e, t he B I A , i n a s i ngl e- m ember , non- pr ece dent i al deci s i on, concl uded thatC heng fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thats he had be en p erse cu ted o r th at sh e h ad a re aso n ab le fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on on acc ount of herr es i s t ance t o C hi na’ s popul at i on co n tr o l po li cies. W ith reg ard to the re sist an ce p ron g , the B o ard a p p e a rs to h a v e a ss u m e d th a t C h e n g ’s c o n d u c t a m o u n ted to r es i s t ance t o t he one- ch il d pol i cy . T he B I A concl uded, h o w ev er , t hatC heng di d nots at i s fyt he per s ecut i on ornexus pr ongs . A s w e now expl ai n, w e agr ee w i t h C heng t hatt he B oar d’ s anal y s i s of both t he per s ecut i on and nexus pr ongs i s not s uppor t ed bys ubstan ti al evi dence , and w e ther efor e gr antthe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

a. R es i s t ance A s an i ni t i al poi nt , ther e ca n be no doubt thatC heng r es i s t ed C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es ( and, as w e have n o ted, th e B o ard assu m ed as m u ch ). In In re M -F -W - & L -G -, t he B I A expl ai ned thatact ion s t hat“thw artt he goal s of the [populati on contr ol ] pl an and [ ar e] vi ew ed w i t h di s favorby C hi n e s e o ffi ci al s i m pl ement i ng t he pl an” c ons t i tut e “r es i s t ance ” under§ 1101( a) ( 42) , even i f t he act i ons ar e not “for cef ul

. ” 24 I. & N . D e c . at 6 3 8 . C h e n g re p e a ted lyre f u se d to c o m p lyw ith m u lt iple o ff

ici als’ i n cre asin g lystr en u o u s demands thats h e a b o rt her fi r s t pr egnanc y , pr ovoki ng “fur [y ] , ” es cal at i ng t hr eat s , and var i ous enfor cementact i ons on t he par tof the off i ci al s . ( A pp. at73 6

. ) C heng fl ed the t ow ns hi p t o have he rbaby , defi ed or der s t hats he under go a s t er i l i zat i on p roc edur e, had t o beW e hav e recogn i zed that su c h re p ort s ar e “t he m ost 9 appr opr i at e and pe r haps t he best r es our ce f ori nform at i on on pol i t i cal s i tuat i ons i n for ei gn nat i ons . ” M cA l l i s t er , 444 F. 3d at 1 8 9 (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted).

- 31- dr agged t o t he cl i ni c t o have the I U D i ns ert ed, and mi s s ed m u lt iple g yn ec o log ical ap p o intm en ts. H e r ac ti o n s w ere s i gni fi cant l ym or e def

i antof C h ina ’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i ci es t han w er e the more l i m i t ed ac t i ons hel d t o cons t i tut e r es i s t ance in In re M -F -W - & L -G -. A lth o u g h th e G o v e rn m e n t d id n o t m a k e th e p o in t in its bri ef, atoral argum ent, i tapp eared for the fi rs t t i m e t o sug gest t hatC heng’ s r es i s t ance t o the off i ci al s ’ deman d s that s he under go an abort i on w as not“r es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am” w i t hi n the meani ng of the I N A beca us e C heng w as unm arr i ed at t he t i m e w hen her act s of r es i s t ance t r ans pi r ed. 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 ). T h e G o v ern m en t argu es th at C h ina’s law s fo rbid d ing u n m arried co u p les fro m p roc rea ti n g are n o t part of a “ popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, ” butar e i ns te ad ai m ed at preven t i ng peo ple fr om hav i ng i l l egit i m at e chil dren, and so C h e n g ’s r e sis tan c e w a s to C h in a ’s ille g iti m a c ylaw s , n o t it s p o p u la tio n c o n tr o l la w s . Id

. W e r ej ectt hi s s i ngul ar l yunper s uas i ve cont ent i on. T he C ount r yR epor tpr epar ed byt he St at e D epart m entaddr es s es as y l um clai m s bas ed upon C hi na’ s N at i onal M arr i age Law ( w hi ch pr os cr i bes pr ocr eat i on by unm arr i ed coupl es ) undert he u mb r e l l a o f

“ c l a i ms b a s e d o n p o p u l a t i o n p o l i c i e s ” a n d “ c l a i ms bas ed on coe r ci ve fa m i l y p lann i ng. ” ( A pp. at442 9I ndeed, t he G overnm ent ’ s ow n br i ef l i kew i s e tr eat s t he 10 N at i onal M arri age Law as a componentof C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, not w i t hs t andi ng i t s co n t e n t i o n a to r a l a r gum ent t hat t he ban on pr ocr eat i on byunm arr i ed coupl es i s notpar tof th e p o p u la tio n c o n tr o l p o lic y . (R e s p ’t B r. 2 4 .) O u r co n cu rri n g co ll ea g u e tak e s issue w ith the B IA ’s 11 br oad i nt erpr et at i on of the re s i s t ance pr ong and w oul d hol d t hat t h e p h r a s e “ r e s i s t a n c e t o a c o e r c i v e p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l p r o g r a m” s houl d be r es t r i ct ed “t o r es i s t ence onl yto abor t i on or s t er i l i zat i on p roc ed ur es , nott o r es i s t ence t o anym ethod of popul at i on contr ol

. ” ( C oncurr i ng O p. at1. ) T he pr i nci pl es of C hevr on defe r ence and the l anguage of § 1101(a ) ( 42) compel us to d isa g re e . B e c a u se th e tex t o f § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ) d o e s n o t cle a rly and un am biguou sl yi nd i cat e t hat C on gress i ntended the p hrase

- 32- ( capi t al i zat i on om i t t ed, em p has i s added)

. ) T he R epor tthus i ndi cat es t hatt he r est r i ct i on on pr ocr eat i on byunm arr i ed co u p l e s i s a c o mpo n e n to f Chi n a ’ s p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l r e g i me, and the G overnm enthas i dent i fi ed no evi dence s uppor t i ng a contr aryconcl us i on. M or eover , t he R epor t ’ s t r eatm entof the 10 N at i onal M arriage L aw as par tand par cel of the popul at i on co n tr o l p rog ram is em inen tl y sen sible. C h ina’s o n e-c h il d -pe rc o u p le p o licyis w e ll-k n o w n , (id . at 4 4 3 ), an d it w o u ld o b v io u sly un derm i ne the po pu l at i on con t rol program i f m arr i ed C hinese c o u p l e s wer e h e l d t o a o n e - c h i l d l i mi tb u tu n ma r r i e d c oupl es coul d pr ocr eat e w i t houtr es t r i ct i on. I n s um , C hi na’ s pr ohi bi t i on on pr ocre at i on byunm arr i ed coupl es i s undeni abl ypar tof the popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, a n d the uncontr adi ct ed evi dence c o n c l u s i v e l ye s t a b l i s h e s th a tCh e n g r e s i s t e d th a tp r o g r a m. 11“coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am” t o i ncl ude onl yabor t i on and s t er i l i zat i on, t he B I A ’ s r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of the pr ovi s i on as encompas s i ng m ethods of popul at i on contr ol ot her t han abort ion an d s t er i l i zat i on, s uch as t he for ced i ns ert i on of I U D s , i s ent i t l ed t o defe r ence under C hevr on. See C hang, 119 F .3 d at 1060

. F urther, as the co ncu rr i ng op i nion itse lf re c o g n ize s, c o u rts— in c lu d in g th is C o u rt— h a v e ro u tin e ly i nt erpr et ed the phr as e “r es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popu lat ion contr ol pr ogr am” t o ext end bey ond act s of r es i s t ance t o abort i on an d steri liz a tio n alon e. S ee , e.g., H u an g v . A tt ’yG en era l, --- F. 3d -

- - - , 2010 W L 3489543, at*5 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( obs ervi ng i n di ct a th at “ [m ] andat orybi r t h- contr ol m eas ur es s hor tof abor t i on ors t er i l i zat i on, s uch as i ns ert i on of an I U D orr equi r ed gynecol ogi cal s cr eeni ngs . . . . qual i fy as a ‘ coer ci ve popul at i on c o n tro l p ro g ra m ’” ); L i, 40 0 F .3 d a t 1 5 9 (h a v in g f o u r c h ild re n in vi ol at i on of the one- chi l d pol i cyi s r es i s t ance t o p o p u lat i on contr ol r egi m e) ; L i , 356 F. 3d at1156 ( decl ari n g i nt entt o have m u lt iple ch il d ren is r esistanc e to p o p u lat ion co n tr o l pro g ram ).

- 33- b. P ers ecut i on W i t h r es pectt o w hethers he w as per s ecut ed, C heng ar gues t hatt he B oar d gave l i t t l e orno cons i der at i on t o t he c i r c u ms t a n c e s t h a td i s t i n g u i s h h e rc a s e f r o m th e mi l l

- ru n I UD i ns er t i on cas e. I n eff

ect , C heng cont ends t hati n focus i ng on t he I U D i ns er t i on i t s el f w i t hout loo ki ng att he patt ern of m i s t r eatm entw i t hi n w hi ch i toccur red, t he B oar d m i s s ed the for es t( t he per s ecut i on) fort he t r ees ( t he I U D i ns ert i on)

. Fort he fo ll o w ing rea so n s, w e a g re e that the B o ard ’s co n clus o ry s t a t e me n t t h a t Che n g “has not s how n aggr avat i ngT he G overnm entdoes notappea rt o s ugges tt hatt he 12 B oar d’ s t r eatm entof the per s ecut i on i s s ue w as i n fac tadequa t e. I ns t ead, the G overnm entcont ends t hatt he B I A “pr es um ed w ith o u t d e c id in g ” th a t C h e n g w a s p e rse c u ted a n d re ste d its ho l d i n g e x c l u s i v e l y o n t h e n e x u s p r o n g . ( Re s p ’ t Br

. 21. ) T he G overnm entm i s r eads the B I A ’ s deci s i on. A ft erdi s cus s i ng t he n e x u s i s s u e , t h e BI A s t a t e d th a tCh e n g “ a l s o h a s n o ts h o wn a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s” a n d th a t sh e f a iled “ to d e m o n stra te th e s u b s ta n tia l e c o n o m ic d is a d v a n ta g e n e c e s s a ry f o r . . . a f in d in g o f

p e rs e c u tio n . ” (A p p . a t 5 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).) A l t hough i t di d s o i n t erm s thatm i ghtgener ous l ybe des cr i bed as s ucci nct , t he B oar d di d purpor tt o r es ol ve the per s ecut i on is s u e .

- 34- ci r cumst ance s ” i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. ( I d. 12 at11. ) I n our vi ew , t he B oar d m aynot , i n det erm i ni ng w hether an asy l um app l i cant s uff ered pastpersecut i on , t ake a si ng le i ns t ance of m i s t r eatm ent( her e, the I U D i ns ert i on) fr om a l ar ger pat t ern of abuse an d confi ne i t s per s ecut i on anal y s i s t o t he ques t i on of w hether that s i ngl e i ns t ance w as , i n and of i t s el f, p e rse c u to ry . In ste a d , “ [ i]n c id e n ts a lleg e d to c o n stitu te p e rs e c u tio n . . . m u s t b e c o n s id e re d c u m u la tiv e ly.” E di m o- D oual l a v. G onzal es , 464 F. 3d 276, 283 (2d C i r . 2006) (S o tom ay o r, J. ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). Per s ecut i on, w e have m ade cl ear , “i s an extr eme concept t hatdoes noti ncl ude eve r ys ortof t r eatm ent ours oci etyr egar ds as offe ns i ve. ” J arbough v. A t t ’ yG en. , 483 F. 3d 184, 191 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (qu o ti n g F ati n v . I. N

. S

. , 1 2 F

. 3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir

. 1993) ) ; acc or d G om ez- Z ul uaga v. A t t ’ yG en. , 527 F. 3d 330, 341- 35- (3d C i r. 20 08 ) ( st at i ng th atpersecut i on do es not encom pass
“ e v e rya c t th a t o u r so c ietym ig h t re g a rd a s u n f a ir, u n ju st, unl aw ful , oruncons t i tut i onal ”)

. O uroft

- quot ed, non- excl us i ve l i s tof exa m pl es of per s ecut i on “i ncl ude[s ] t hr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr ict i ons s o s ever e that t heycon sti tute a t hr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” Fat i n, 12 F. 3d at 1240. B utw hi l e t he conce ptof per s ecut i on i s “extr eme, ” i d. at 1 2 4 3 , i ti s n o ta n i mp o s s i b l e s t a n d a r d t o s a t i s f y . T h e BI A, r el y i ng upon t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory of t he IN A , has emphasi zed t h a t “ [ t ] h e h a r m o r s u f f e r i n g n e e d n o t [ o n l y ] b e p h y s i c a l , but m ayt ake other fo rm s , s uch as t he del i ber at e i m pos i t i on of s e v e r e e c o n o m i c d i s a d v a n t a g e o rth e d e p r i v a t i o n o f l i b e r t y, f o o d , h o u sin g , em p lo ym e n t o r o th e r e ss e n tials o f life ,” a n d th a t, w i t h r egar d t o t he non- phy s i cal as pect s of per s ecu ti o n , an appl i c ant“nee d notdemonstr at e a t ot al depr i vat i on of l i vel i hood o r a to tal w ith d ra w a l o f a ll ec o n o m ic o p p o rtu n ityin o rd e r to d em o n str ate h arm am o u n ti n g to p erse cu tio n . ” In re T -Z , 2 4 I. & N

. D ec. 163, 171, 173 ( B I A 2007) ( quot i ng H

. R

. R ep. N o. 95- 1452, at5 ( 1978) ) ; acc or d L i v. A t t ’ yG en. , 4 0 0 F

. 3d 157, 169 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ; s ee al s o I

. N

. S. v. St evi c, 467 U

. S. 407, 428 n. 22 ( 1984) ( expl ai ni ng t hatper s ecut i on is a “br oaderconce pt t han t hr eat s t o l i fe orfr eedom”) ; N gengw e, 543 F. 3d at1036; C h ancha vac v. I

. N

. S. , 207 F. 3d 584, 589 ( 9th C i r . 2000); M arq u ez v . I. N

. S

. , 1 0 5 F

. 3 d 3 7 4 , 3 7 9 (7th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). M or eover , i n det erm i ni ng w hether a ct ual ort hr eat ened m i s t r eatm entamount s t o per s ecut i on, “[ t ] he cumul at i ve ef fec t o f th e a p p lica n t’s e x p e rie n c e m u s t b e tak e n in to a c c o u n t” beca us e “[t ] aki ng i s ol at ed i nci dent s out of cont ext m aybe m i s l eadi ng. ” M anzur v. D ep’ tof H om el and Sec. , 494 F. 3d 281, 2 9 0 (2d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted);T h e S upr eme C our thas not ed thatt he H andbook 13 q u o ted in P o ra d iso v a “ p r o v id e s s ig n if ica n t g u id a n c e in c o n s tru in g th e P ro to c o l, to w h ic h C o n g re s s s o u g h t to c o n f o rm ,” ev e n t h o u g h t h e Han d b o o k i s n o t b i n d i n g a u t h o r i t y . I

. N. S. v. C a rd o z a -F o n s e c a , 4 8 0 U .S . 4 2 1 , 4 3 9 n .2 2 (1 9 8 7 ).

- 36- acc or d G om ez- Z ul uaga, 527 F. 3d at 343 ( expl ai ni ng t hat w e do not eval uat e i nci dent s i n a vacuum, but i ns t ead m ust ex am i ne t hem “i n t he cont extof the .

. . over al l t r aj ect ory ” of m istre a tm e n t); T o u re , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 3 1 8 (a ss e ss in g e v e n ts under ly ing pe r s ecut i on cl ai m “[i ] n the aggr egat e” ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ) ; L i , 400 F. 3d at169 ( s ame) ; N gengw e, 543 F. 3d at 1 0 3 6 ; I n re O -Z - & I-Z ; 22 I. & N

. D ec . 2 3 , 2 5 -26 (B IA 1 9 9 8 ). E ven i f one i nci d en t o f m i s t r eatm enti s not , i n and of i t s el f, s ever e enough t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, a s er i es of i nci dents of phy s i cal oreconomi c mi s t r eatm entcoul d, t aken t ogether , be s uffi ci ent l yabus i ve t o amount t o per s ecut i on. See E di m o- D oual l a, 464 F. 3d at 283. “W her e no s i ngl e i n cide nt s t ands outabove the other s , s om et i m es a s m al l i nci dentm aybe
‘ t he l as ts t r aw ’ ; and al t hough no s i ngle i nci dentm aybe s uffi ci ent , al l t he i nci dent s r el at ed bythe appl i cantt aken tog ethe r, co u ld m ak e [ the a p p li ca n t’ s] fe ar ‘w ell -f o u n d ed

. ’” Por adi s ova v. G onzal es , 420 F. 3d 70, 80 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng O ffi ce of t he U nit ed N at i on s H i gh C om m i ssi on er for R efug ees, H andbook on Pr ocedur es and C r i t er i a for D et erm i ni ng R efuge e St atus U ndert he 1951 C onvent i on and the 1 9 6 7 Pr ot ocol R elati n g to the S tatu s o f R ef u g ee s ¶ 2 0 1 (G en ev a 1 9 9 2 )). 13 I n t hi s cas e, t he B oar d s t at ed that , bey ond t he i ns ert i on of- 37- a n IU D , C h e n g “ h a s n o t s h o w n a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” (A p p . a t 5 .) In re a c h in g th is c o n c lu sio n , h o w e v e r, th e B o a rd d id nottake i nt o acc ountm anyof the ac t s of m i s t r eatm ent unequi vocal l yes t abl i s hed by C heng’ s uncontr adi ct ed evi dence

. Fi r s t , t he B oard fa il ed t o cons i ders om e of the mosts er i ous t hr eat s l evel l ed atC heng, i ncl udi ng t he off i ci al s ’ s t at ementthat th e yw o u ld tak e h e r d a u g h ter f ro m h e r a n d th e ir th re a t to d e tain h e r b o y f rie n d f o r m o n th s if

sh e d id n o t co m p lyw ith th e ir dem and t hat s he u nd ergo a st eri l i zat i on proced ure. T hese t hr e a t s a r e u n q u e s t i o n a b l yr e l e v a n tt o t h e q u e s t i o n o f whe t her C hen g ex peri enced pas t p ers ecuti on (and w hethershe has a r eas onabl e fe arof futur e per s ecut i on)

. C f. N gengw e, 543 F. 3d at 10 3 7 (ex p la in in g that “[ t] h e IJ d id n o t con side r N g en g w e’s a rg u m e n t t h a t h e r i n -l a w s . . . th re a te n e d to ta k e h e r c h ild re n ,” a fa ctt hati s m at er i al t o t he as s es s m ent of “w hethernon- phy s i cal p e rse c u tio n o c c u rre d ” ). T h e th r e a ts a re , w e n o te, e sp e c ially i m por t ant in l i ghtof the fa ctthati ndi vi dual i ns t ance s of m i s t r eatm entm us tbe as s es s ed w i t hi n t he “over al l t r aj ect oryof t he har as s m ent , ” w hi ch i n t hi s case , as the ful fi l l m entof the t hr eatt o t ake Cheng’ s farm demonstr at es , i s one of e s cal at i ng and cons um m at ed thr eat s. G om ez- Z ul uaga, 527 F. 3d at343 ( fur t herexpl ai ni ng t hat “[ w ]ei ghi ng thi s fi nal i nci denti n t he cont extof the pr i ori nci dent s s how s t hatPet i t i oner ’ s al l egat i ons reg ard ing the im m inen ce an d m en ac ing n ature o f th e [ ea rl ier] t hr eat s ar e j us t i fi ed”) ; acc or d M an zur , 494 F. 3d at290; E d im o -D o u a lla , 4 6 4 F .3 d a t 2 8 3

. M o r e o v e r , t h e B o a r d d i d n o tm e n t i o n C h e n g ’ s t e s t i m o n y, found cr edi b le byt he I J , thatthe I U D i ns ert i on pr ocedur e w as per form ed in a hurr i ed and i m pr operm annert hatcaus ed her e x tre m e p a in

. T h is fa c t is s ig n if ica n t to th e p e rse c u tio n a n a ly sis- 38- beca us e the B I A ’ s concl us i on i n I n r e M

- F- W

- & L

- G

- thatan I U D i nserti o n di d noti t s el f cons t i tut e per s ecut i on r es t ed i n no sm a ll p a rt u p o n its u n d e rsta n d in g th a t IU D in se rtio n “ typ ica lly d o e s n o t c a u s e s u b s ta n tia l p a in o r la s tin g s id e e f f e c ts .” 2 4 I. & N

. D ec. at641 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee Li v. G onzal es , 405 F. 3d 1 7 1 , 1 7 9 ( 4 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g , p r e - I n r e M

- F

- W- & L

- G, t hatI U D i ns er t i on coul d cons t i tut e per s ecut i on i f the “manner o r m ea n s” o f in serti o n w ere h arsh o r a typ ical o r if the p roc ed u re w ere ac co m p an ied b y“f o rce , p h y sical ab u se, or o ther e q u ivalent c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” ). Fi nal l y , and mosti m port ant l y , the B oar d di d not adequa t el yaddr es s t he s i gni fi canc e of the fi nanci al har ds hi ps i m pos ed upon C heng i n di r ect r es pons e t o herr es i s t ance t o t he fami l ypl anni ng offi ci al s ’ or der s . W e have been cl earthat
“ e c o n o m ic d e p riv a tio n , if s u f f ic ien tlyse v e re , ca n c o n stitu te per s ecut i on w i t hi n t he meani ng of asy l um l aw . ” L i , 400 F. 3d at 159. I n L i , for exampl e, t he pet i t i onerw as fi ned the equi val ent of tw entym ont hs ’ s al ary , w as bl ackl i s t ed fr om governm ent empl o y m en t, and had va r i ous hous ehol d i t ems confi s cat ed on a c c o u n to f

h i s r e s i s t a n c e t o Chi n a ’ s o n e - c h i l d p o l i c y . Se e i d

. Li w as , how ever , abl e t o getbyw i t h “s om e t empora r y j obs

. ” I d. at 160 ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. W e expl ai n ed thatal t hough
“ L i’s f a m ilyd id n o t re a c h n e a r-s tar v a tio n lev e ls, w e c a n f a irly s a yt h a tt h e e c o n o mi c r e s t r i c t i o n s a l l e g e d l yf a c e d b yt h e Li fami l yw er e ‘ s ever e’

. . . . [bec aus e for ] a r el at i vel y poorfami l y [, su c h h a rd sh ip s] . . . co u ld th re a ten [ th e ir] f r e e d o m if

n o t th e ir liv e s.” Id . at 1 6 9 . W e e m p h a siz e d th a t th e e c o n o m ic dep ri vati on s vi si t ed u po n L i w ere “del i berat el yi m po sed as a fo rm o f p u n ishm en t bec au se o f h is violati o n o f C h ina’s popul at i on contr ol po l i cy , r athert han bei ng t he r es ul tof- 39- ‘ natur al ’ e conom i c dow nturns orgener al l yhar s h condi t i ons s har ed byot her s i n C hi na. ” I d. ; acc or d B oykov v. I

. N

. S. , 109 F .3 d 4 13 , 41 7 (7t h C i r. 19 97 ) ( exp l ai ning t hat the “ec on om ic h a rm re q u ire d

. . . [to sh o w p e rse c u ti o n ] m u st b e d e lib e ra tely i m po sed as a form of pun i shm ent” (quotat i on m arks, ci t at i on s, and s om e al t er at i ons om i t t ed) )

. W e hel d, i n s hor t , thatw hen an e c o n o m ic s a n c tio n is s u f f ic ie n tlyse v e re , an d w h e re it i s d e lib e ra telyim p o se d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t as p u n ish m e n t, economi c per s ecut i on m aybe es t abl i s hed. See Li , 400 F. 3d at 1 6 9

. W e a re n o t alo n e in re c o g n izin g th a t se v e re e c o n o m ic s a n c t i o n s c o n s t i tu t e p e r s e c u t i o n wi t h i n t h e me a n i n g o f t h e I NA, see , e.g., A h m ed v . G o n za les, 4 6 7 F

. 3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ), and the B I A i t s el f pr evi ous l yr eac hed the s ame concl us i on, emphasi zi ng t hatC ongr es s i nt ended the conceptof per s ecut i on t o r eac h notonl yphy s i cal harm , butal s o “depr i vat ion [s] of lib e rt y, f o o d , h o u s in g , e m p lo ym e n t o r o th e r e s s e n tia ls o f lif e .” I n r e T-Z, 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at171 ( quot i ng H

. R

. R ep. N o. 95- 1452, at 5 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) )

. I ndeed, cons i der at i on of the ec o n o m ic asp ec ts of

p erse cu ti o n in the co n text o f C h ina’s c o e rc iv e p o p u latio n c o n tro l m e a su re s is e sp e c ia llya p p ro p ria te i n l i ghtof t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t ory of I I R I R A

. B oth t he H ous e and S e n a te R e p o rts f

o r IIR IR A re c o g n iz e d th a t “[ c ]o u p les w ith unauthor i zed c hi l dr en ar e s ubj ect ed t o exce s s i ve fi nes , and s om eti m es thei rhom es and pos s es s i ons ar e des t r oy ed, ” and emphasi zed that“[t ] he U ni t ed St at es s houl d notdenypr ot ect i on t o per s ons s ubj ect ed t o s uch tr eatm ent
. ” H

. R

. R ep. N o. 1 0 4 -46 9 (I) , at 17 4 ; see a lso S

. R ep . N o . 1 0 4 -95 , at 92 (19 9 5 ). C heng’ s uncont es t ed and c r edi bl e evi dence s how s thatW e do not over l ook t he fact t hat , as i n L i , C heng w as 14 abl e t o “getby ” w i t h a j ob s he l ocat ed i n anotherci t y . L i , 400 F. 3d at 167. W e and the B I A have r ecogni zed thatan as y l um a p p lica n t n e e d n o t n e c e ss a rily “ re a c h n e a r-s tar v a tio n lev e ls” in or derfors ever e econom i c s anct i ons t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on. I d. at169; acc or d I n r e T-Z, 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at171.

- 40- sh e w a s s u b

jec ted to su c h tre a tm e n t. A f ter C h e n g re f

u se d to compl y w i t h t he offi ci al s ’ or der s t hats he have an abort i on, l ocal governm entoffi ci al s confi s cat ed herfami l y farm and truck, and fo rba d e the e n ti re f

am il yfro m w o rkin g o n the f arm . C h en g ’s cr e d i b l e t e s t i mon yma d e u n mi s t a k a b l yc l e a rth e d e v a s t a t i ng i m pactthat su ch a depr i vat i on i m pos ed upon herand her f a m ily

— sh e sta ted in n o u n c e r ta in ter m s th a t th e f a m ily “d ep en d ed o n the f

arm to m ak e a li v in g , ” a fa ct th at th e IJ appea r s t o have c r edi t ed w hen des cr i bi ng t he “s er i ous ” i m pact t hat even a m od estfi ne w ou l d hav e on a fam i l yof the C hen gs’ li m it ed m ea n s. (A p p . at 76 , 7 3 6

. ) 14 T he B I A ’ s di s cus s i on of C heng’ s economi c per s ecut i on w a s lim ite d to its sta tem e n t th a t C h e n g “ h a s f a iled to d em o n str ate th e sub stan ti al ec o n o m ic d isad v an tag e n ec essa ry f o r su c h a f

in d in g o f p e rse c u tio n .” (I d . at 5 .) T h is s tate m e n t is nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence

. T he i m po sit ion of “modestfi nes ” i s , of cour s e, i ns uffi ci entt o r i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. H uang v. I

. N

. S. , 421 F. 3d 125, 129 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( percur i am); ac co r d I n r e M

- F- W

- & L

- G

- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at 641 ( exp lai n ing t hat“fi nes . . . thatar e notexce s s i ve” do not amount t o per s ecut i on)

. B ut“an e xtr aor di nar i l ys ever e fi ne or w h o les a le s e izu re o f

a ss e ts m a yb e so s e v e r e a s to a m o u n t to- 41- p e rse c u tio n , e v e n th o u g h th e b a sic n e c e ss iti e s o f life m ig h t still b e a tt aina b le. ” In re T -Z , 2 4 I. & N

. at 17 1 (cit ati o n o m itted); a c c o rd L i, 40 0 F .3 d a t 1 6 9 . A w h o les a le s e izu re o f a ss e ts is p re c ise lyw h a t o c c u rre d h e re , as th e u n c o n tra d icte d f a c ts cr edi t ed byt he IJ cl ear l yes t abl i s h. Sur el ythe s ei zur e of propert yas si gn i fi cant as t he fa m i l yfarm and truck, w hen tho se v eryasse ts serve d as t h e e x c lu sive so u rce o f th e f am il y ’s l i vel i hood, ( A pp. a t7 3 6 ) , c o n s t i tut es a s ever e ec onom i c s anct i on th a t “ c o u ld th re a te n [ th e ] f a m ily’s f re e d o m if

n o t th e irliv e s .” L i , 400 F. 3d at169. A nd, as w as t he ca s e i n L i , t her e ca n be no doubtt hatC heng’ s fi nanci al har ds hi p w as i m pos ed as a s anct i on and w as no t t he p roduct of natural shi ft s i n eco no m i c con dit i on s; as i n L i , t he conf

i s cat i on of the fa r m w as “i m pos ed as a form of p u n ishm e n t b ec au se o f [ C h en g ’s] violati o n o f C h ina’s popul at i on contr ol pol i cy . ” I d. W e con cl ud e, i n sum , that t h e B IA ’s analy si s of pa st persecut i on , w hich fai l ed to con si der cr edibl e evidence of p ast per s ecut i on i n C heng’ s cas e and di d notaddr es s t he i m pactof t he s eve re e conomi c s anct i ons i m pos ed upon C heng, i s not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v ide nce. See Espi nos a- C or t ez, 607 F. 3d at 1 13- 14 ( “A n appl i cantforas y l um i s ent i t l ed t o a re a so n e d a n a ly sis , n o t o n e w h ich w h o lly d is re g a rd s re lev a n t, pr obat i ve evi dence

. ” ( quot i ng M ema v. G onzal es , 474 F. 3d 412, 419 ( 7t h C i r . 2007) ) ) ; acc or d K an g, 2010 W L 2680752, at*4. I ti s cl eart hatby focus i ng excl us i vel y on t he for ced i ns ert i on of a n IU D to th e e x c lu sio n o f a ll o th e r e v id e n c e o f

m istre a tm e n t, t he B IA fai l ed t o consi der “[t ]he cum ulat i ve effect of [ C hen g’s] exper i ence. ” M anzur , 494 F. 3d at290. W e agr ee w i t h C heng t hatw hen cons i der ed “[ i ] n the aggr egat e, ” Toure , 443 F

. 3 d at 318, t he mi s t r eatm en t s he expe r i ence d— i ncl udi ng the- 42- co n fisca tio n o f th e f

arm an d tru ck u p o n w h ich h er f am il y ’s l i vel i hood depende d, the thr eatt o t ake he rdaught erfr om her and cont i nue t o det ai n herboy fr i end, t he for ced i ns ert i on of an I U D underci r cumst ance s t hat caus ed i nt ens e phy s i cal pai n, and t he i m pos i t i on of fi nes for havi ng an unauthor i zed c hi l d and for m i s s i ng g ynecol ogi cal appoi nt m ent s

— compel s the conc l us i on t hats he s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on.

c . N e xus Fi nal l y , w e agr ee w i t h C heng thatt he B I A ’ s concl us i on t hat ther e w as no nexus betw een he ract s of r es i s t ance and the m i s t r eatm ent v is i t ed upon heri s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . T h e B IA ’s a n a ly sis o f th is iss u e w a s b rie f

— it expl ai ned, ci t i ng I n r e M

- F -W - & L

- G

- , that“w her e the i ns er t i on orr ei ns erti o n o f an I U D i s carr i ed outas partof a r out i ne medi cal pr ocedur e, an al i en w i l l have di ffi cul t ys how i ng t he r equi r ed nexus , i

. e. , t hat t he pr ocedur e w as . . . beca us e of h e r r e s is ta n c e to C h in a ’s f a m ily p la n n in g p o lic y .” (A p p . a t 4 .) T he B I A concl uded thatC heng “of fer ed n o b asi s t o s how that th e IU D w a s in se rte d b e c a u se o f h e r re sis tan c e to C h in a ’s f a m ily p o lic ya n d n o t m e re lya s p a rt o f a ro u tin e m e d ica l an d f a m ily pl anni ng pol i cy . ” ( I d. at5. ) T he B oar d s t at ed thatC heng had m er el y s how n “an act of r es i s t ance and an u nconnec t ed im p o sit ion o f h arm . ” (Id

. ) A r eas onabl e adj udi cat or , w e conc l ude, w oul d be compel l ed t o di s agr ee. A s w i t h i t s per sec u t i on anal y s i s , the B I A ’ s concl us i on t hatt he mi s t r eatm entC heng su ffe r ed w as
“ u n c o n n e c t e d ” t o h e r d e f i a n c e o f th e p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l r e g i me s t ems fr om i t s focus upon the I U D i ns ert i on al one w i t hout- 43- r egar d t o t he hi s t or y of m i s t r eatm ent w i t hi n w hi ch i ttr ans pi r ed. ( I d

. ) Su c h a n a n a l yt i c a l e r r o r c a n b e s i g n i f i c a n t n o t j us t t o t he i s s ue of pe r s ecut i on, butal s o t o t he nexus pr ong. A s t he Second C i r cui t h as not ed, notonl yi s i tpos s i bl e thatan “a ccumul at i on of har m from t he i ndi vi dual i nci dent s m ayr i s e t o t he l evel nece s s aryforper s ecut i on even though an i ndi vi dual i nci dent m aynot , ” butt hats ame accumul at i on o r t r aj ect oryof m i s t r eatm entm ayi t s el f pr ovi de ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of the al l eged pe r s ecut or ’ s m ot i ve i n t he abs ence of di r ectevi dence of m ot i ve or nexus . M anzur , 494 F. 3d at 290. A s t he courtw ent on t o expl ai n: [T]he m ot i ve forthe harm i nfl i ct ed mus t be an aly ze d in li g h t o f th e co n text in w h ich th e h arm occurr ed. T he patt ern pr ovi des cont ex t fort he p eti ti o n ers’ claim s an d m aylend ev iden ti ary su p p o rt to a c o n c lu sio n th a t in d iv id u a l in c id e n ts of harm w er e i n fac t“on ac cou n t of ” a gr ound p ro te c te d b yth e A c t . . . . I d. ( quot at i on m arks and inte r nal ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; cf. E s p i n o s a - Co r t e z , 6 0 7 F

. 3 d a t1 0 8

- 0 9 ( n o t i n g th a t“ th e I NA m akes m oti ve cr i t i cal , ” butan as y l um appl i cantm ayr el yon ci r cumst ant i al evi dence of the pe rsec ut or ’ s m ot i ve, s i nce “per s ecut or s ar e har dl y l i kel y t o s ubm i t decl ar at i ons expl ai ni ng exac t l yw hatm ot i vat ed them t o act ” ( quot at i on m ark s and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) )

. Put di ffe r ent l y , w her e di r ect evi dence of a nexus betw een a n actof r es i s t ance and an ac t o f m i s t r eatm ent ( s uch as I U D i ns er t i on) i s l acki ng, the t r aj ect oryof abus e may p rov ide c ir cu m stan ti al ev iden ce o f m o ti v e, an d su ch a trajectory m us tbe acc ount ed for i n t he nexus anal y s i s . See M anzur , 494- 44- F .3 d a t 2 9 0

. In C h e n g ’s c a se , su c h c ir c u m sta n tial e v id e n c e is unnecessaryto es tablish the n ex u s b etw ee n h er m istr eatm entand h e r d e f ia n c e o f th e f a m ilyp lan n in g p o licie s, b e c a u se a m p le di r ect ev iden ce , cr edi t ed i n i t s ent i r etybythe I J , compel s the concl us i on t hats he w as per s ecut ed on ac countof herr es i s t ance . S ee B ag h d asa ry an v . H o lder, 59 2 F

. 3 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 5 (9th C ir

. 2010) ( “B eca us e the B I A i gnor ed thi s compel l i ng evi dence of nexus , i t s concl us i on t hat[pet i t i oner ] fai l ed t o es t abl i s h nexus is n o t su p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial ev id e n c e .”). A s C h e n g c o rre c tly a rg u e s, “ in e v e ry i n s tan c e th a t [ sh e ] h a d a n o p p o rtu n ityto c o m p ly w ith f

a m ily p l a n n in g o f

f ic ia ls , s h e c h o s e to re s is t.” (P e t’r B r. 2 7 .) M o re to th e p o in t, th e re c o rd u n e q u iv o c a lly es t abl i s hes t hati n r es pons e t o eac h of thes e ac t s of r es i s t ance , offi ci al s t hrea tene d and puni s hed her , and i n eac h i ns t ance the offi ci al s expr ess l yl i nked the s anct i ons t o C heng’ s defi ance of t he fam i l y pl anni ng pol i ci es

— i f C heng di d not agr ee t o have a n abor t i on, s he w oul d l os e her j ob and be for ced t o t erm i nat e her p r e g n a n c y; b e c a u s e C h e n g d i d n o t t e r m i n a t e h e rp r e g n a n c y, offi ci al s confi s cat ed her fami l y farm and truck and f orbade he r fr om w o rkin g on t he fa r m ; i f C heng di d notagr ee t o be s t er i l i z e d , h e rd a u g h t e rwou l d b e t a k e n f r o m he ra n d t he det ent i on of herboy fr i end w oul d be prol onged; becaus e C heng had an i l l egi t i m at e chi l d, s he w as for ced t o pays oci al com pen sat i on fees t o send her d aug htert o d ay care; and becau se C heng mi s s ed gynec ol ogi cal exami nat i ons , s he w as as s es s ed f in e s th a t sh e c o u ld n o t a f f o rd to p a y . T h e IJ f

o u n d th e e n tirety o f C h e n g ’s a c c o u n t o f

th e se f a c ts c re d ib le— a s th e B o a rd itse lf a c k n o w le d g e d , “ th e f

a c ts o f th is c a s e a re n o t in s e ri o u s d is p u te .” ( A pp. a t5

. ) I n l i g h to f th i s a b u n d a n c e o f

c r e d i b l e e v i d e n ce- 45- expr es s l yl i nki ng t he mi s t r eatm entC heng suff er ed t o her r es i s t ance t o t he popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am, w e conc l ude that “a r eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed” to r ej ectthe B I A ’ s char act er i zat i on of thes e harm s as bei ng unr el at ed t o her act s of resi st ance. To ure, 44 3 F

. 3d at31 6 (quo t at i on m arks, alt era ti o n , an d cit ati o n o m itted). T h e Bo a r d c o n c l u d e d o th e r wi s e b yt r e a t i n g t h e I UD in se rtio n a s th e o n lyre lev a n t ac t o f m istre a tm e n t, ap p a re n tly r el egat i ng t he r emai nderof C heng’ s exper i ence s t o a ca tego ry o f “ a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s” th a t itd e c id e d a re p e rtin e n t o n ly t o t he q u esti on of w hetherthe I U D i ns ert i on i t s el f w as su f f icie n tlyh a rm f

u l to c o n stitu te p e rse c u tio n . B u t th e IN A c a lls for a det erm i nat i on of per s ecut i on, n o t agg rav ati ng ci r cumst ance s , and, as w e have expl ai ned, t he eve nt s under l y i ng a cl ai m of per s ecut i on m us tbe v ie w ed i n t he aggr egat e. See, e .g ., L i, 40 0 F .3 d a t 1 6 9 ; M a n z u r, 4 9 4 F .3 d a t 2 9 0 . H e re , w ith t he ar guabl e exc ept i on of the I U D i ns ert i on i t s el f, t her e w as an ex p ress, un d en iable li n k b etw ee n ea ch su ch ev en t and C h en g ’s re sis tan c e to th e p o p u latio n c o n tro l r e g im e . N o re a so n a b le ad jud icator c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th ese ev en ts w ere “unconne ct ed” t o C heng’ s act s o f resi s t ance , i r r es pect i ve of w h e th e r th e a c t o f

in se rtin g a n IU D w a s a ro u tin e f a m ily planni ng proced ure. (A pp . at5.) W e con cl ud e t hat these e x p re ss ly lin k e d a c ts of a b u se a m o u n t to p a st p e rse c u tio n w ith a n ex u s to C h en g ’s resist an ce , m ea n ing that the B o ard ’s det erm i nat i on t hatC heng fai l ed t o s at i s fy t he nexus e l ementof herot herr es i s t ance cl ai m i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e .B e c a u se w e fi nd that the B oard’s decis i on on past 15 per s ecut i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evidenc e, w e nee d n o t ad d ress i ts co n clus ion reg ard ing the l ikeliho o d o f f u ture per s ecut i on ori t s d ismi s s al of C heng’ s cl ai m s forw i t hhol di ng o f re m o v a l a n d C A T re lie f

.

- 46- I V. A s w e have expl ai ned, “the undi s put ed r ecor d evi dence compel s t he conc l us i on” thatC heng w as per s ecut ed on ac count of herr es i s t ance t o C hi na’ s coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol p o licie s. G h e b re m e d h in v . A sh c ro f t, 39 2 F .3 d 2 4 1 , 2 4 3 (7 th 15 C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). A lth o u g h w e f in d th a t th e e v id e n c e u n e q u iv o c a lly demonstr at es t hatC heng s at i s fi ed the r es i s t ance , per s ecut i on, an d n ex u s p ron g s, the u lt im ate d ec isi o n co n ce rn in g C h en g ’s el i gi bi l i t yforas y l um i s the age ncy ’ s , notour s , t o m ake. See Go n z a l e s v . Th o ma s , 54 7 U

. S

. 1 8 3 , 1 8 6 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) (h o ld in g th a t “th e law ’s o rd in a ry re m a n d re q u ire m e n t” c o m p e ls r emand t o t he agenc y t o m ake the fi nal deci s i on as t o as y l um el i gi bil it y ); acc or d I

. N

. S. v. O r l ando V entur a, 537 U

. S. 12, 16 ( 2002) ( per cur i am); G hebr emedhi n, 392 F. 3d at 243 (c o n c lu d in g th a t “th e p o w e r to g ra n t as y lu m is v e ste d so lelyin th e h a n d s o f

th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, an d

. . . ev e n if a n a lien is o th e rw i se el i gibl e, the A tto rn e yG e n e ra l is e m p o w e re d b ysta tu te to d en yreli ef

”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). W e the ref o re g ran t C h en g ’s pet it ion for r evi ew and r emand t o t he B I A forfur t her p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng: T he maj or i t yconcl udes t hatr es i s t ance to a coer ci ve popul at i on contr ol progra m i ncl udes r es i s t ance t o C hi na’ s ban on pr ocr eat i on byunm arr i ed coupl es and r es i s t ance t o t he in se rtio n o f

a n IU D . T h e m a

jo rityh a s re m a n d e d th is c a se to t he B IA for r econ si derat i on of the credi ble evi den ce of past per s ecut i on, i ncl udi ng per s ecut i on forr esi s t ance t o t he i ns er t i on of the I U D

. I bel i eve, how ever , thatthe “r es i s t ance ” l anguage of the st atut e r efe r s onl yt o r es i s t ance t o abor t i on or s t er i l i zat i on. I n m yopi ni on, t he r emand shoul d o n l ycons i der re s is ta n c e to th e s e la tte r t w o p ro c e d u re s . F o r t h a t re a s o n , I w r i t e s epar at el yt o addr es s the B I A ’ s int erpr et at i on of the phr as e “otherr es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on cont r ol p ro g ra m .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ). B e c a u se o f

th e stru c tu re o f

se c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a ) ( 4 2 ) , w ith th e f irst tw o p h ra se s o f

th e se n ten c e re f

e rrin g e x c lu siv e lyto t hos e i ndi vi dual s w ho have be en fo rce d t o under go abort i on ora s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e and t o i ndi vi dual s w ho have be en per s ecut ed for fai l ur e or r efus al t o under go s uch a procedur e, I c o n c lu d e th a t th e th ird p h ra se , d ire c ted a t r es is tance t o a “coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am” r efe r s t o r es i s t ance onl yt o abor t i on ors t er i l i zat i on pr oced u res, nott o r es i s t ance t o any m e th o d o f

p o p u latio n c o n tro l, i n c lu d in g , in th is in sta n c e , IU D in se rtio n . T h e c o u rts th a t h a v e e x a m in e d th is i s s ue do notagr ee w i t h m e, butI s ubm i tthattheyhave i nt erpr et ed the s t atut e i n t he ma n nert hatt heydi d beca us e the pet it i oner s befor e them had been for ced t o under go t he i n s e r t i o n o f

a n I UD a n d th u s th e b r i e f i n g was s k e wed i n t hat di r ect i on w i t hout cons i der i ng w hether i t w as t he co rre ct d ir e c tio n . C ont r aryt o t he i nt erpr et at i ons t o dat e of s ect i on 11 01 (a) (42), I concl ud e t hat C on gress i ntended the ph ras e “otherr es i s t ance ” t o be i nt erpr et ed as r efe r r i n g to act i vi t i es of i ndi vi dual s w ho ar e r es i s t i ng oroppos i ng C hi na’ s popul at i on contr ol pol i cy . S u ch act i vi t i es and i ndi vi dual s m i ghti ncl ude, forexam pl e, a doct or ’ s r efus al t o per form abor t i on or s t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur es , a cons ci en ti ous obj ect or ’ s ci r cul at i on of m at er i al s uppor t i ng t he ban of abor t i on and steri l i zat i on p ro c e d u re s, or an act i vis t ’s organizat i on o f p u b lic2 demonstr at i ons i n oppos i t i on t o for ced a bor t i on and s te ri liz a tio n . I f the l anguage of se cti on 1101( a) ( 42) i s i nt erpr et ed as encompas s i ng a ll act i ons t hat“thw artt he goal s of the [p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l ] p l a n a n d [ a r e ] v i e wed wi t h d i s f a v o r by C h in e s e o f

f ic ia l s i m p le m e n tin g th e p la n . . .” , I n r e M- F

- W- & L

- G- , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. 633 ( B I A 2008) , i t s s cope i s t oo b ro a d a n d g o e s b e yo n d w h a t I f in d to b e C o n g re ss ’s in ten t. W i t houta narr ow eri nt erpr et at ion of thi s phr as e, s ect i on 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ) c o u ld b e re a d to a p p lyto a n ym e th o d o f b irth contr ol, i ncl udi ng, among ot her s , condoms orabs t i nence . Such a br oad i nt erpr et at i on w oul d eff ec t i vel y“af

for d a s afe h arb o r t o all tho se C h ines e w h o ch af e u n d er [ C h ina’s popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am]. ” L i v. A sh c ro ft , 356 F. 3d 1153, 1170 ( 9t h C i r . 2004) ( K l ei nfeld, J

. , di s s ent i ng)

. T hi s cannot be w hatC ongr es s i nt ended. A s J udge K l ei nfel d comm ent ed in d iss e n t: [ P u rs u a n t t o 8 U .S .C . §

1157( a) ( 5) ] , [t ] her e ar e only1, 000 asy lu m spots a y ear for tho se s e e k in g a s y lu m u n d e r [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ] , w h ich a rg u a b ly extended i t s succor onlyt o those m o st b ru ta li z e d b yC h in e se f a m ily poli cy . B ybr oadeni ng t he gr ant t o t h o s e who a r e mos tp e r i p h e r al t o t hi s cl as s . . . w e may w el l be w i t hdr aw i ng A m eri can pr ot ect i on f ro m th o se a t th e h e a rt o f it, per s ons s ubj ect ed t o for ced abor t i ons and ster i l i zat i ons . T he1 The numerical l i m itation set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1157(a)(5) was repe aled in 2005. S

ee P ub

. L

. 109-13, Div. B , Title I , § 101(g )(2) , May 11 , 2 005, 11 9 Stat . 3 05 . ThePr e sid e nt i s n owe mpo were d to set , o n an annu a l b a s is , “ th e numb e r o f r e f u g e e s wh o ma

y be admitted under [8 U.S.C. § 1157 (a )] . . . .” For Fiscal Year

2010, President B arack Oba

ma deter mined that no more than 17,000 ref ug ees f ro m E as t Asia will be grante d ref ug ee status. See Pr e sid e nti a l D e te rmin atio n N o. 20 08 -2 9, Sept. 30 , 2 00 8, 73 F .R. 52385. Although theallocation has c hang ed si nce JudgeKleinfe ld’s dissent was issued, bec ause a l i m i ton the number of ref ug ees that may be grante d asylum sti ll ex ists, his rea soning supporting a narrow construction of the phrase “other resistanc e to a c oerc ive population control program”remains persuasive.

3 c o m p a ss io n f

e lt b yth e m a

jo rity r i s ks a cruel i r onyof deni al of c o m p a s sio n to th o se w h o n e e d it m o st. I d. (fo o tno te om itted). 1 F o r th e re a so n s a rticu late d a b o v e , I re sp e c tf u lly c o n c u r.