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 Third C irc uit 4-21-2010 

# X ueqie ng Lin v

. Atty Ge n U SA P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2135

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " X ue qie ng L in v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1473. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2010/1473I M G- 1 7 7 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2135

___________ XUE QI E NG L I N, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f a n O rde r o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN o. A 099 670 340 Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

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

A pr i l 21, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, R O T H and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 21, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM X u e q ien g L in p e tit io n s f o r re v iew o f

a n o rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “ BI A” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s b e l o w, we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. L i n, a nat i ve of Chi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n A pr i l 2006. H e w as char ged as2

r emovabl e as an al i en w ho ent er ed w i thoutbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed. See I m m i gr at i on a n d Na t i o n a l i tyAc t( “ I NA” ) § 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A) ( i ) [ 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( A) ( i ) ] . He conce ded r emovabi l i tyand appl i ed foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde r the U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT ortur e ( “C A T ”) . I n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, he st at ed thathis w i fe ha d b een f orci blyst eri l i zed, and that aft er he l eftfor the U nit ed S t at es, h is w if e a ls o h a d to p a ya 3 0 ,0 0 0 R M B f in e . A ft erL i n fi l ed hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, butbefor e hi s hear i ng befor e the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e (“ IJ”) too k p lace , the A tt o rne yG en era l dec ided in M att er o f J-S -, 2 4 I. & N . D ec. 520 ( A . G . 2008) , hol di ng thatan al i en w hos e s pous e had e xper i ence d coer ci ve popul at i on m eas ur es w oul d notaut om at i cal l ybe el i gi bl e foras y l um . H ow ever , s uch an a l i e n c o u l d s t i l l q u a l i f

yf o ra s y l u m i f

h e s h o we d h e h a d b e e n p e r s e c u t e d f o rh i s o wn r e s i s t a n c e t o C h i n a ’ s p o p u l a t i o n p o l i c y. In a h e a rin g b e f

o re th e IJ, L in tes tifie d th a t w h e n o f f icia ls c a m e to tak e h is w if e to b e ste rilize d , h e tried to sto p th e m . H e tes tifie d th a t th e o f f icia ls k ick e d a n d p u n c h e d h im and for ced hi m t o the gr ound fort en mi nut es . A . R . 105- 06. A ft ertheyt ook hi s w i fe a w a y , th e yle t h im g o . H e d id n o t s e e k m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t a f te rw a rd s . A .R . 1 0 8 . T he I J deni ed Li n’ s appl i cat i ons , concl udi ng thathe w as notcr edi bl e. T he I J not ed thatL i n had notm ent i oned anythi ng abouthi s phy s i cal confr ont at i on w i th popul at i on o f f icia ls in h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , an d w h e n h e w a s a sk e d w h yh e o m itt e d it, h e o n ly rep li ed that h e lef

t i t ou t bec au se h e h ad n o t sou g h t m ed ical trea tm en t. O n ap p ea l, the B IA3

f o u n d n o c lea r e rro r in th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g . T h e B IA a lso sta ted th a t ev e n if cr edi bl e, L i n coul d notbas e hi s ow n as y l um cl ai m on the for ced s t er i l i zat i on of hi s w i fe, a n d th a t th e h a rm L in a lleg e d lysu f f e re d a s a re su lt o f

o th e r re sis tan c e to C h in a ’s f a m ily p lann ing p o li cies w as n o t so se v ere as to am o u n t t o p erse cu ti o n u n d er the A ct. T h e B IA a lso re jec ted L in ’s c laim f

o r w ith h o ld in g a n d re lief u n d e r th e C A T . L in f

iled a tim e ly p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o IN A § 2 4 2 [8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ]. B ec au se th e B IA i ndepende nt l yas s es s ed the r ecor d, w e r evi ew onl ythe B I A ’ s fi nal or derof r emoval . See E zea gw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 405 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e us e a s ubs t ant i al evi dence stan d ard to rev iew fa ctua l fi n d ing s, T arraw all yv . A sh cro ft, 3 3 8 F . 3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 (3d C ir . 2003) , i ncl udi ng fi ndi ngs conce rni ng an appl i cant ’ s pas tper s ecut i on or“w el l - founded f ear of futur e per s ecut i on, ” G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . U nderthe subst anti al evidence st and ard, fi nd i ng s ar e up held “un l ess the ev i den ce no ton l ysupp ort s a co n tr aryco n clus ion , b u t com p els i t. ” A b d il le v. A sh cro ft, 2 4 2 F . 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e re v ie w th e B IA ’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o . S e e B ri s e n o -F lo re s v . A tt’ yG e n ., 4 9 2 F .3 d 2 2 6 , 2 2 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A n ap pli cant m aydem on strat e el i gibi l i tyfor asy l um byshow i ng ei ther past per s ecut i on ora w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, n a t i o n a l i ty , me mb e r s h i p i n a p a r t i c u l a rs o c i a l g r o u p , o rp o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . S e e I NA § 101( a) ( 42) ( A ) [8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) ] . Si gni fi cant l y , “per s ecut i on connot es4

extr eme behavi or , i ncl udi ng thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t ortur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe orfr eedom. ” A hm ed v. A s hcr oft , 341 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I t“does noti ncl ude al l tr eatm entthatour s oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us t , oreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal . ” I d. ( quot at i on o m itted). T he s pous es of thos e w ho have be en per s ecut ed bycoer ci ve popul at i on contr ol pol i ci es ar e notaut om at i cal l yel i gi bl e foras y l um . L i n- Z heng v. A t t ’ yG en. , 557 F. 3d 147 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) ( hol di ng thatther e i s no aut om at i c r efuge e s t atus fors pous es of ind ividu als su b

jected to co erc ive p o p u lat ion co n tr o l po li cies). B ase d o n the s tatu tory d e f in iti o n o f “ re f u g e e ” u n d e r IN A § 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )], w e c o n c lu d e d in L i n- Z heng thatr efuge e s t atus ext ends onl yt o the i ndi vi dual w ho had bee n s ubj ect ed t o an i nvol unt aryabort i on ors t er i l i zat i on pr ocedur e, had bee n per s ecut ed forfai l i ng orr efus i ng to u n d e rg o s u c h a p ro c e d u re , o r h a d a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f s u c h p e rs e c u tio n in th e f u tu re . S ee i d. at15 6. L i n im pli ci t l yackn ow l edg es this , bu targues that he est abli shed p ast per s ecut i on bas ed on hi s ow n r es i s t ance t o C hi na’ s fami l ypl anni ng pol i cy . See i d. at157 ( not i ng thats pous es r emai n el i gi bl e forr el i ef i f theyqual i fyas a r efuge e under § 101( a) ( 42) bas ed upon thei row n per s ecut i on, orw el l - founded f earof per s ecut i on, for “otherr es i s t ance ” t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am). A s evi dence of per s ecut i on, L in p o ints t o the f

ine, his b ea ti n g , an d p sy ch o log ical ha rm b rou g h t on b yh is w ife’s s t er i l i zat i on.5

W e agr ee w i th the B I A thateven i f cr edi bl e, L i n has notes t abl i s hed el i gi bi l i tyfor a sy lu m . W h ile L in ’s a ttem p t to sto p p o p u latio n o f f icia ls f ro m tak in g h is w if

e a w a ylik e ly cons t i tut es “otherr es i s t ance , ” the r ecor d does notcompel a fi ndi ng thathi s exper i ence s bas ed on thatr es i s t ance r i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. T he bea t i ng L i n des cr i bed w as not s uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, part i cul ar l yw her e he di d notr equi r e medi cal tre a tm e n t. S e e K ib in d a v . A tt’yG e n ., 4 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 -2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t a sing le de tention an d b ea ti n g req u ir ing a f ew sti tche s an d leav ing a sc ar w as n o t “sev ere e n o u g h to c o n stitu te p e rse c u tio n u n d e r o u r strin g e n t sta n d a rd .”). L in c laim s h is w if e p a id a fi ne of 30, 000 R M B aft erhe l eftC hi na. H e al l eges i n hi s br i ef thatthe fi ne amount ed “t o the depr i vat i on of ec onom i c means t o s urvi val . ” Pet i t i oner ’ s B r i ef a t17. H ow ever , he does notexpl ai n how the fi ne af fec t ed hi m per s onal l y , nordoes he eve n expl ai n any pr obl ems hi s fami l yexper i ence d fr om pay i ng the fi ne. See Li v. A t t ’ yG en. , 400 F. 3d 157, 168 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( i n or derfora fi ne t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, i tm us tbe s o oner ous that it th re a ten s lif

e o r f re e d o m ). L in a lso a lleg e d th a t h e w a s “ d e v a sta ted ” a s a re su lt o f h is w i fe’ s for ced s t er i l i zat i on. “[A ] fi ndi ng of pas tper s ecut i on m i ghtr es ton a s how i ng of ps y chol ogi cal harm . ” O uk v. G onzal es , 464 F. 3d 108, 111 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) . B ut , even as s um i ng thata s pous e’ s emot i onal s uffe r i ng r emai ns a cogni zabl e bas i s foras y l um foll ow i ng L i n-Z hen g, 55 7 F . 3d at15 6, w e con cl ud e that the record here do es not es t abli sh thatL i n s uffe r ed ps y chol ogi cal harm r i s i ng t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. See J i ang v. G onzal es , 500 F. 3d 137, 141- 43 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( fi ndi ng no pas tper s ecut i on w her e for cedL i n h a s wa i v e d a n yc h a l l e n g e t o h i s c l a i m th a th e wa rr a n t s p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e CA T 1 as he di d notr ai s e anyar gum ent s r egar di ng hi s C A T cl ai m i n hi s openi ng br i ef. C hen v. A sh cro ft, 3 8 1 F . 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 6 abort i on r es ul t ed i n i l l nes s and di m i ni s hed hea l th t o pet i t i oner ’ s m other , i m pos i ng

“ a n g u is h . . . a n d . . . e c o n o m ic lo s s ” to h im ). B e c a u se L in c a n n o t sa tisf yth e a sy lu m sta n d a rd , h e c a n n o t sa tisf yth e m o re d if

f icu lt w ith h o lding o f re m o v al st an d ard . S ee Z u b ed a v . A sh cro ft, 3 3 3 F . 3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 9 -70 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . F o rth e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 1