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 7-27-2010 

# M ei sh an Zh a o v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2205

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ei sh an Zh a o v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 874. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/874NOT 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- 2205

___________ M E I S HAN Z HAO, Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 97- 371- 339) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e A nni e S. G ar cy

____________________________________ 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 7, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y27, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Pet i t i onerM ei s han Zhao i s a ci t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na w ho pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ s ( “B I A ”) fi nal or derof r e mo v a l . F o rth e f

o l l o wi n g 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.2 I. Z h ao en tered the U n it ed S tat es w ith o u t i n sp ec ti o n in M arc h 2 0 0 3 , an d in F eb rua ry 2004 fi l ed an a ffi r m at i ve appl i cat i on foras y l um and r el at ed r el i ef ba s ed on hercl ai m t hat s he had be en per s ecut ed i n C hi na due t o herr el i gi on and underthe fa m i l ypl anni ng pol i cy . A ft eran i nt ervi ew w i th an as y l um offi ceri n A pr i l 2004, Z hao’ s appl i cat i on w as r efe rr ed t o t he I m m i gr at i on C our t . A ccor di ngl y , i n J anuary2005, the D epart m entof H o m e lan d S e c u rity(“ D H S ” ) iss u e d a N o tice to A p p e a r a lleg in g th a t Z h a o w a s re m o v a b le under8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) . T hr ough couns el , Z hao conc eded he rr emovabi l i t ybut r enew ed herappl i cat i on foras y l um and r el at ed r el i ef. Z hao t es t i fi ed that , i n O ct ober2000, bi r th contr ol offi ci al s r emoved herfr om her pl ace of w or k and t ook hert o a hos pi t al w her e s he w as for ced t o under go an abort i on b e c a u se sh e h a d v io late d th e f a m ilyp lan n in g p o licyb yb e c o m in g p re g n a n t w h ile unm arr i ed. C ow or ker s w i tnes s ed herbei ng t aken f r om the off

i ce, and s he t ol d a fr i end a b o u t th e a b o rtio n . A f

ter th e a b o rtio n , Z h a o w a s h a ra ss e d a t w o rk a n d w a s tra n sf e rre d to an off i ce i n the countr y s i de, w her e s he l i ved w i th herpar ent s . D ur i ng thi s t i m e, s he w as verydepr es s ed and c ons i der ed s ui ci de. I n O ct ober2001, Z hao bega n att endi ng C hr i s t i an chur ch s ervi ces atthe r ecomm endat i on of a f

r i end. She t ol d the congr egat i on aboutthe abort i on and ther eaf t er b e g a n a tten d in g w e e k lyp ra y e r m e e tin g s. Z h a o w a s b a p tize d in Ju ly2 0 0 2 . H o w e v e r, in N ovember2002, fi ve pol i ce of fi cer s di s rupt ed a c hur ch gather i ng, confi s cat ed the3

p a ri s h io n e rs ’ b ib le s , h a n d c u f f e d th e p a ri s h io n e rs a n d to o k th e m to th e p o lic e s ta tio n . Z hao w as i nt err ogat ed and a ccus ed of be i ng a mem berof an “ evi l cul t . ” A pol i ce of fi cer al s o phy s i cal l yabus ed her , banged he rhead a gai ns tthe w al l , and r aped he rw hi l e s he w as i n a s ol i t aryhol di ng cel l . T he pol i ce of fi ceratt empt ed t o r ape Zhao a s econd t i m e, but s h e s c re a m e d a n d th re a te n e d s u ic id e , w h ic h c a u s e d th e p o lic e o f f ic e r t o s to p th e a s s a u lt. Z hao had pe r m anent l ydamaged herey e w hen s he bange d herhead a gai ns tthe w al l . She w a s re le a s e d f

ro m p o lic e c u s to d yf

iv e d a y s la te r w h e n h e r p a re n ts p a id 2 0 ,0 0 0 R M B . Z hao w as , how ever , t ol d t o r eportt o the pol i ce s t at i on once pe rw eek. H erfami l ythen pai d a s nakehe ad t o arr ange f orherdepartur e fr om C hi na. Z hao ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es o n M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 3 . S h e re m a in s in sp o ra d ic c o n tac t w ith h e r f a m ilya n d so m e f

rie n d s in C h in a . S h e tes tifie d th a t a “ f a m ilyc o n tac t” to ld h e r th a t th e p o lice to ld h e r p a re n ts th a t if s he r eturned t o C hi na then s he w oul d be s entt o a for ced l aborcamp. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deni ed Zhao’ s r eques t s foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and r el i ef unde rthe U ni t ed N at i ons C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . She bas ed the dec i s i on on herfi ndi ng thatZ hao w as notcr edi bl e, and, al t ernat i vel y , thats he pr ovi ded no corr obor at i ng evi dence t o s uppor thercl ai m s and thus di d notm eetthe bur den of pr oof nec es s aryt o es t abl i s h herel i gi bi l i tyforr el i ef. A s t o the l ack of corr obor at i on, Z hao s ubm i t t ed evi dence r egar di ng heri dent i ty , but , as the I J expl ai ned, s he di d notoffe ranyaff i davi t s fr om fami l ym ember s orform erco- w or ker s , aff i davi t s or otherdocument at i on fr om the chur ch s he att ended i n C hi na, m edi cal r eport s confi r m i ng4

the damage t o herey e, empl oym entr ecor ds , ort es t i m onyoraff i davi t s fr om the chur ch thats he att ends i n N ew J er s ey . Z hao expl ai ned herfai l ur e t o s ubm i ts uppor t i ng evi dence byas s ert i ng thatw as unaw ar e thats he nee ded t o do s o. T he I J r ej ect ed thi s expl anat i on. T w o w ee k s lat er, Z h ao fil ed a m o ti o n to reo p en b ef o re the IJ th at i n clud ed let ters fr om herm otherand a c ow or ker . She al s o att empt ed t o corr ectw hats he cont ended w as an err oneous tr ans l at i on of the s t at ementatt ache d t o heras y l um appl i cat i on. Z hao ju stif ied su b m itt in g th e d o c u m e n ts in a m o tio n to re o p e n b ysta tin g th a t itw a s n o t u n til the m erit s h ea ri n g that sh e “ firstb ec am e a w are o f w h at co rrob o rati v e e v iden ce the C o u rt bel i eves w oul d corr obor at e hert es t i m ony . ” The I J deni ed the mot i on, fi ndi ng that“al l of the evi dence pr offe r ed coul d have e as i l ybeen f i l ed by[Zhao] bythe t i m e the hea r i ng comm ence d. ” The I J al s o det erm i ned thatthe evi dence di d notdemonstr at e a mat er i al change i n Z hao’ s cas e, as i s r equi r ed forr eopeni ng. T he B I A di s m i s s ed Zhao’ s appea l . I tdi d notaff i r m the adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng, b u t agre ed that the c o m b ination o f Z h ao ’s w ea k test im o n yan d lack o f c o rrob o rati o n w ere fat al t o hercl ai m s . D es pi t e Zhao’ s ar gum entt o the contr ary , the B I A concl uded thatt he IJ a p p ro p ria telye n g a g e d in th e c o rro b o ra tio n a n a ly sis re q u ire d b yA b d u lai v . A sh c ro f t, 239 F. 3d 542, 554 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , and agr eed thatZ hao’ s expl anat i on forherl ack of d o c u m e n tatio n w a s in su f f icie n t. T h e B IA a lso a f f irm e d th e d e n ial o f

th e m o tio n to reo p en , co n clud ing that Z h ao h ad fa il ed to ad eq u atelyex p lai n w h ythe d o cu m en ts w ere pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e.W e n o te th a t ev e n if w e d id h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th is c laim , itw o u ld lik e ly 1 fai l . W hi l e Zhao w as undoubt edl ytr aumat i zed bythe eve nt s s he des cr i bed, w e have not h e ld th a t su c h tra u m a re liev e s a p e tit io n e r o f th e re q u ire m e n t to p ro f f e r re a so n a b ly avai l abl e evi dence thatcorr obor at es hercl ai m . C f. Fi adj oe v. A t t ’ yG en. , 411 F. 3d 135 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( not i ng thatthe pet i t i oner , w hom , forel even y ear s w as hel d byherfather a s a sla v e a n d su b

jec ted to p h y sic a l b e a tin g s a n d f re q u e n t ra p e , co rro b o ra ted h e r c laim w i th U nit ed S t at es D epart m ent of S t at e C ou ntryR epo rt s and a repo rtbya psy cho l og i st w h o tr ea ted h er f

o r trau m a). 5 T hr ough couns el , Z hao now pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof re m o v a l. II W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e BI A’ s f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e mo v a l u n d e r8 U. S . C. § 1252( a) . T he B I A ’ s deci s i on i s r evi ew ed underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d and w ill b e u p h e ld “ u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n lysu p p o rts a c o n tra ryc o n c lu sio n , b u t co m p e ls it.” Z u b e d a v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 3 3 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). Z h a o a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d in d e n y in g h e r c laim b a se d o n h e r f a ilu re to corr ob orat e her cl ai m s. In part i cular , she assert s that s he h as post -traum at i c stres s dis order and thatrequi ri ng her t o co rr ob orat e her cl ai m s i s unreasonab l e as i tw ou l d cau se h e r to re liv e th e tra u m a th a t sh e su f f e re d . H o w e v e r, as th e G o v e rn m e n t as se rts, Z h a o d id notchal l enge the corr obor at i on rul i ng on thi s bas i s befor e the B I A

— s he as s ert ed th ro u g h o u t ea c h sta g e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s th a t sh e w a s u n a w a re th a t sh e w a s re q u ire d to p re se n t su c h e v id e n c e n o t th a t itw a s to o tra u m a tic f o r h e r to d o so . T h is iss u e is ther efor e unexha us t ed and w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i deri t . See B onhom etr e v. 1W e not e thatthe R E A L I D A ctamendm ent s r egar di ng cr edi bi l i tyand 2 corr obor at i on do notappl yt o Z hao’ s cas e bec aus e s he fi l ed heras y l um appl i cat i on pr i or to th e A c t’s e f

f e c tiv e d a te. S e e C h u k w u , 4 8 4 F .3 d a t 1 9 1 -9 2 . H o w e v e r, th e A c t m e re ly codi fi ed exi s t i ng l aw r egar di ng corr obor at i on. I d. 6 G o n za les, 4 1 4 F . 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). F u rth e r, su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e B IA ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t Z h a o f a iled to m eetherbur den of pr oof t o obt ai n as y l um byunr eas onabl yfai l i ng t o corr obor at e her cl ai m s. T o q uali fyfor asy l um , an ap pli cant m ustdem on strat e t hat s he h as suffered past p e rs e c u tio n o r h a s a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 2 ).

“ M o re o v e r, an a p p lica n t f o r a sy lu m m u st p ro v id e re a so n a b le e v id e n c e to c o rro b o ra te tes tim o n yw h e n it i s re a so n a b le [ to d o so ] a n d th e re is n o sa tisf a c to rye x p lan a tio n f

o r its ab sen ce . ” S an d ie v. A tt ’yG en . , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (cit ing T o u re v . A tt ’y G en. , 443 F. 3d 310, 323 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . A ccor di ngl y , deni al of r el i ef maybe pr edi cat ed o n a f a ilu re to c o rro b o ra te w h e n : “( 1 ) th e IJ id e n tifie s f a c ts f o r w h ich it i s re a so n a b le to expec tthe appl i cantt o pr oduce c orr obor at i on, ( 2) the appl i cantfai l s t o corr obor at e, and ( 3) the appl i cantfai l s t o adequa t el yexpl ai n thatfai l ur e. ” C hukw u v. A t t ’ yG en. , 484 F. 3d 1 8 5 , 1 9 1 -92 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (cit ing A b d u lai , 2 3 9 F . 3 d at 55 4 ). 2 H er e, the B I A and I J engage d i n the i nqui ryr equi r ed byA bdul ai . T he B I A agr eed thatZ hao s houl d have pr es ent ed i t ems s uch as : ( 1) an af fi davi tfr om the fr i end w hom s he t ol d aboutthe abort i on, ( 2) an af fi davi tfr om herpar ent s w i th w hom s he l i ved af t erthe ab o rt ion an d w h o p aid to h av e h er relea sed fro m p o li ce cu stod y , (3) a m ed ical rep o rt7

conce rni ng herey e i nj ury , and ( 4) an af fi davi tfr om a mem berof the chur ch thats he att en d s in N ew Jerse y . B ase d o n the c ir cu m stan ce s o f th is case , w e a g ree w ith the B IA thati tw as r eas onabl e t o expec tZ hao t o s ubm i ts uch s uppor t i ng evi dence . A nyar gum ent that sh e c o u ld n o t hav e o b tai n ed su ch ev iden ce is be li ed b ythe f ac t th at sh e o ff

ere d let ters fro m h er m o ther a n d a c o w o rke r i n h er m o ti o n to reo p en , w h ich w as f il ed so o n af

ter th e IJ d en ied h er c lai m s. S h e a lso c o u ld h av e v isi ted a d o ctor in th e U n it ed S tat es to co n firm th a t h e r e y e w a s d a m a g e d a n d /o r to su b sta n tiate h e r n e w c laim th a t sh e su f f e rs f ro m p o sttr aumat i c s tr es s di s or der . A s the B I A expl ai ned, the pet i t i oner ’ s bur den t o s uppor ther claim is w ell -estab li sh ed , see A b d u lai , 2 3 9 F . 3 d at 55 4 -55 , an d w e a g ree that Z h ao ’s as s ert i on thats he di d notknow thats he had t o corr obor at e hercl ai m i s i nadequa t e, es peci al l yas s he had be en r epr es ent ed bycouns el foratl eas tthr ee y ear s pr i ort o the m er i t s hear i ng. T hus , w e fi nd not hi ng i n the r ecor d thatw oul d compel us t o concl ude that the B I A err ed i n aff

i r m i ng the deni al of herr eques t s forr el i ef. B e c a u se Z h a o d id n o t m e e t h e r b u rd e n o f p ro o f a s to h e r a sy lu m c laim , h e r c laim forw i thhol di ng of r emoval nece s s ar i l yfai l s , as does hercl ai m forpr ot ect i on underthe C A T . S ee Y u v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 1 3 F . 3 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T o th e e x ten t th a t Z h a o c h a llen g e s th e d e n ial o f h e r m o tio n to re o p e n , the B IA d id notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n aff i r m i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on. See Ezeagw una v. A s hcr oft , 325 F. 3d 396, 409 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . I n r emoval pr ocee di ngs , m ot i ons t o r eopen maybe gr ant ed w hen a pa r tys eeks t o pr es entnew evi dence that“i s m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and8

c o u l d n o th a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d o rp r e s e n t e d a tth e f o r me rh e a r i n g . ” 8 C. F . R. § 1003. 2( c) ( 1) . Z hao di d notcl ai m thatthe l ett er s fr om herm otherand cow or ker , ort he expl anat i on of the tr ans l at i on err or , w er e notpr evi ous l yavai l abl e; r ather , s he as s ert ed o n lyth a t sh e d id n o t k n o w sh e n e e d e d to p re se n t su c h in f o rm a tio n . T h is, c o m b in e d w ith herabi l i tyt o pr offe rthe evi dence s o qui ckl yaft erthe mer i t s hear i ng, cons t i tut es s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng the conc l us i on thats he di d notdemonstr at e thatevi dence coul d nothave be en obt ai ned i n t i m e t o be pr es ent ed atherm er i t s hear i ng. F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yZ h a o ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.