A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ay 28, 2010 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
L IN G U O L I ,

P eti ti o n er , N o. 09- 9542 v. B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp eal s E R I C H . H O L D E R , J R . , U ni t ed St at es A tto rn e yG e n e ra l ,

R e sp o n d e n t . ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e H A R T Z , S EY M OUR , and AN DE RS ON , C i rcui tJudg es. L i n G uo L i at t empt ed t o ent ert he U ni t ed St at es atSan Fr anci s co, C al i forni a, on A ugus t20, 2005, w i thoutpr operentrydocument at i on. T he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyi s s ued hi m a N ot i ce t o A ppearbefor e an i m m i gr at i on j udge. I n r es pons e M r . L i conce ded r emovabi l i tybuts oughtpol i t i cal a s y lu m , re s tr ic tio n o n re m o v a l, a n d re lie f u n d e r t h e C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rt u re .-2-

A tt he hea r i ng befor e the i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J ) , M r . L i gave the fol l ow i ng acc ount : I n J ul y1999, w hen he w as 16 y ear s ol d and l i vi ng i n C hi na, he i m pr egnat ed hi s 17- y ear - ol d gi r l fr i end i n vi ol at i on of C hi nes e l aw . T hat S e p tem b e r h e a n d h is g irlfr ien d w e re m a rrie d in a n u n o fficia l ce re m o n ya t h is h o m e . T h e fo llo w in g m o n th , o ffice rs c a m e to h is h o m e , issu e d h im a su m m o n s to p a ya 1 0 , 0 0 0 - Ye n fi n e , a n d t o o k h i s wi fe a wa yfo ra n i n v o l u n t a rya b o r t i o n . An al t er cat i on br oke outbetw een the off i cer s and hi s fami l ydur i ng w hi ch he hi tone o f th e o ffice rs o n th e h e a d w ith a stic k . H e fled th e sc e n e . A f ter lea rn in g f

ro m h is fa ther tha t office rs ha d co m e to a rrest him , h e m o v ed to an o ther p rov ince , w h ere h e fo u n d e m p lo ym e n t an d liv e d sa fe lyfo r fiv e y e a rs. H e th e n re tu rn e d to v isit h is fa m ily, b u t “ p u b lic s e c u ri ty o ffic e rs ” c a m e lo o k in g fo r h im th e fo llo w in g e v e n in g . R . , V ol . 1 at144. A tt hatpoi nthe dec i ded t o pays m uggl er s t o gethi m t o the U n ite d S ta te s . T he I J deni ed M r . L i ’ s r eques t s forr el i ef a nd or der ed hi m deport ed, rul i ng ( 1) t hatM r . L i w as notcr edi bl e and ( 2) thateven i f he w er e t o be bel i eved, he had nots how n t hathe had be en per s ecut ed orthatther e w as a r eas onabl e cha nce that i f he r etur ned t o C hi na he w oul d be per s ecut ed ort or tur ed. T he I J expl ai ned that C hi na i s a bi g countr y , w i t h m anyar eas thatdo notenfor ce the popul at i on- contr ol l aw s , and per s ecut i on forhi s at t ack on a n offi cerw oul d notbe per s ecut i on under t he im m i grat i on l aw s.-3-

O n appea l t o t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( the B I A ) , M r . L i ar gued ( 1) t hatt he I J ’ s cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on w as s pecul at i ve and ( 2) thatper s ecut i on s t emm i ng fr om hi s att ack on the fa m i l y - pl anni ng offi ceri s a pr opergr ound under the Im m igrati o n an d N ati o n ali tyA ct (th e IN A ). T h e B IA d ism issed the a p p ea l. It ru led th a t itn e e d n o t re v iew M r. L i’s c h a llen g e to th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili ty d e ter m in a tio n , b e c a u se h is e v id e n c e , ev e n if b e liev e d , w o u ld n o t sa tisf yh is bur den of s how i ng t hathe had be en per s ecut ed i n the pas torw as l i kel yt o be p e r s e c u t e d o r t o r tu r e d i f h e r e tu r n e d t o Ch i n a . T h e BI A s t a t e d t h a tt h e I NA pr ovi des foras y l um bas ed onl yon per s ecut i on thatt he appl i canthi m s el f has s uffe r ed orm us ts uffe r , noton w hatm ayhave happened orm i ghthappen t o a gi r l fr i end, and thathe had nots how n thathe had s uffe r ed anypas tper s ecut i on or c o u ld re a so n a b lyfe a r f u tu re p e rse c u tio n b e c a u se h e h a d liv e d u n h a rm e d fo r six y ear s i n a pr ovi nce othert han hi s hom e pr ovi nce. O n appea l M r . L i ( 1) agai n chal l enges t he I J ’ s det erm i nat i on thathe w as n o t cr e d ib le; (2 ) a ss e rts th a t p e rse c u tio n b a se d o n h is a ttac k o n th e o ffice r is pr ot ect ed undert he I N A beca us e the att ack w as r es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve p o p u la tio n -c o n tr o l p o lic y , s ee 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) ( B ) ( “a pe r s on . . . w ho has b e e n p e rse c u ted fo r . . . re sis tan c e to a c o e rc iv e p o p u latio n c o n tro l p ro g ra m , sh a ll be dee m ed t o have be en per s ecut ed on ac countof pol i t i cal opi ni on”) ; ( 3) cont ends t hat hi s safetyi n a p rovi nce o t her than his ho m e province i s i rr el evan tbecau se “he s houl d nothave be en expe ct ed t o have w ai t ed ar ound t o have be en-4-

per s ecut ed, ” A pl t . B r . at6; and ( 4) poi nt s outthat“a pe r s on need nothave actual l ys uffe r ed per s ecut i on i n t he pas tt o qual i fyforas y l um , ” i d. W e ar e notper s uaded. W e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s l egal det erm i nat i ons de novo a n d its fin d in g s o f

fa c t u n d e r a s u b s ta n tia l- e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . See Kabba v. Mukas ey , 530 F. 3d 1239, 1244 ( 10th C i r . 2008) . T o qual i fyforas y l um undert he I N A , an appl i cantbear s t he bur den of s how i ng thathe s uffe r ed per s ecut i on orhas

“ a w e l l - fo u n d e d fe a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , 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 . ” 8 U. S . C. § 1101( a) ( 42) ( defi ni ng r ef ugee ); s e e id . 1158( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( al i en mustbe a r efuge e t o be el i gi bl e foras y l um ) ; 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 13( a) ( appl i cantbear s t he bur den of p rov ing ref

u g ee statu s). T o qual i fyforr es tr i ct i on on r emoval undert he I N A , an appl i cantm us ts how a “c l earpr obabi l i ty ” thati n the countryt o w hi ch he i s t o be r emoved hi s “l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened” 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 i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” Hayr apet

yan v. Mukas ey , 534 F. 3d 1330, 1336 ( 10th C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal qu otat i on m arks om i t t ed). T o q uali fyfor r el i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainst T or tur e, an appl i cantbear s t he bur den of s how i ng that“i ti s m or e l i kel yt han not t hathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o the pr opos ed countryof r emoval . ” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 6 (c )(2 ). A sh o w in g o f p a st p e rse c u tio n c re a tes a re b u ttab le p re s u m p tio n o f

a w e ll- fo u n d e d fe a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See i d. § 1208. 13( b) ( 1) . A n appl i cantw ho can r el ocat e t o an ar ea of hi s countryof-5-

nat i onal i t yw her e he c oul d l i ve s afe l yhas notes t abl i s hed a w el l - founded fearof f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . See Tulengkey v. G onz al es , 4 2 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 1

– 8 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe evi dence pr es ent ed byM r . L i , even i f bel i eved, di d nots at i s fyhi s bur den of s how i ng pr i or per s ecut i on, a w el l - founded fearof futur e per s ecut i on, orthe l i kel i hood of t or tur e. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e B IA ’s d ism iss a l o f M r. L i’s a p p e a l.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge