Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of A ppellate Proc edure 43(c) (2), Attorne y Gene ral Er ic H. * Holder, Jr. is automatically substitut ed for

former Attorney Gene ral Micha el B . Mukasey as responde nt in this case . The Honor able Jane R. Roth, of the United States Court of Appea ls for the Third ** Circuit, sitt ing by

desig nation. 07
- 53 69
- ag G uo W ang v. E r i c H ol der U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F OR THE S EC OND C IR C U IT

_______________ August Term, 2009 (Argued: September

23, 2009 Dec ided: October 2, 2009) Docke t No. 07-5369-a g

________________________________________________________ G UO Q I W ANG ,

Petitioner , —v.— E RI C H. H OL DER , J R ., Attor ne y Ge ne ra l of

the Un ite d St a te s, * Respondent
.

________________________________________________________ Be fore : W AL KE R , K ATZ MANN , and R OT H , Circuit Judges
. **

_______________ P et i t i o nfo r r ev i ew o f a no rd er o f t h e B o ar d

o f Imm i gra t i o nAp p ea l s (“ BI A” ) a ff i rm i n g a de c isi on of an immig ratio n ju dg e wh ic h d e nie d p e tit ion e r Guo Qi Wan g ’s a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum , withholding of r emoval under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), a

nd withholding of r emoval under the Conve nti on

Ag a ins t T or

tur e (“ CA T” ). We d e ny

the pe tit ion , f

ind ingthat th e B I A c or

re c tly conclude d that Wang’ s participation in a sc heme to sell org ans for profit on the blac k marke t was a ser ious nonpolit ical cr ime.

_______________2

Couns e l f or Pe tit ion e r: J OHN F. C LARK , Holland & Har t L L P, W ashing ton, DC Couns e l f or Re sp on de nt: J A M ES E. G RI MES , Senior L itigation Counsel (Gr eg ory G. K a t s a s , A s s i s t an tA t t o r

n e y G e n e r a l , L i n d a

S
. W e r n e r y, Assistant Director , on the brief ), Off ice of I mmigration L itigation, U.S. Depa

rtment of Just ice, Washing ton, DC

_______________ P ER C UR I AM : This case calls upon us in principal pa rt to determine whether

the B oard of

I mmigration Appea ls (“B I A”) corr ectly conclude d that participation in a scheme to sell org ans for profit on the black ma

rket is a se rious nonpolitical crime. Petitioner Guo Qi Wang petitions for revie w of a n order of the B I A af

firming a dec ision of an immig ration judg e which de nied his application for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), a

nd withholding of r emoval under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (“ CA T” ). We a g re e wi th t he B I A that Wang ’s pa

rt ic ipatio n in

a sc he me to s e ll o rg ans fo r p ro fi t on the black ma

rket wa s a ser ious nonpolit ical cr ime. Acc ording ly , we de ny the petition.

F A CT U A L B AC K GR OUND In May 2000, Guo Qi Wang , a native a nd citizen of the People’s Republic of China, attempted to enter

the United States without valid travel doc uments. I n April 2001, Wang filed an af firmative a

pplication for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval under 8 U .S.C. § 1231(b)(3), withholding of r emoval under the CAT, and de fer

ral of r emoval under

the CAT. In h is application, Wangclaimed a fea r of pe rsec ution and torture f or violating his ag ree ment with the Chinese g overnme nt not to ex pose the g overnme nt’s prog ram of ha rvestingorg ans and tissue from executed pr isoners for profit. Wang stated that, as pa rt of the g overnme nt’s prog ram, he3

extracted org ans and tissue fr om executed prisoner s at least one hundr ed times. In J uly 2002, Wang w as cha

rg ed as r emovable by

service of a N otice to Appea r. In F e br ua ry 20 03 , Wangfi le d a

su pp le me nta l a sylum

a pp lic a tio n, pr e se nti nge sse nti a lly the same fac ts and claims as his first application, namely a fe ar of perse cution and torture for e x posing the Chinese g overnme nt’s prog ram of e x trac ting or g ans fr om executed prisoner s for prof it. At an April 2004 merits hea

ring , Wang te stified in support of his application for r elief f rom remova l. Specifica lly , Wang te stified that he had be come pe rsonally involved, at the military

hospital wher e he w orked, in a

scheme involving the ha

rvestingof org ans fr om executed prisoner s. Wang stated that, in order

to procure the ca daver s from which to ha rvest org ans, the hospital would pay court off icials for e ach body , and that he himself some times made these pa y ments on behalf of the hospital. Acc ordingto his testim ony , Wang pe rsonally remove d the skin from ca daver s

“ a bo ut 1 00 tim e s. ” Th e ha

rv e sti ngwo uld

oc c ur e ith e r at th e e xec uti on

loc a tio n o r at a
c re mator ium , a

nd Wan g wa s p re se nt at so me of the e xec uti on s, a lth ou g h h e wa s in str uc te d n ot t o disclose the deta ils of the org an har vesting scheme to the public. Wang te stified that afte r the org ans we re ha

rvested, the hospital “sold them to patients[ ,] . . . [ f]irst . . . [ to] the patients who ha d mo ne y , a

nd se c on d [to ] the patie nts wh o h ave pr e sti g e to g e t th os e or g ans .” Ac c or din g to Wang, the org an har

vesting scheme was ve ry

lucrative for the hospital. Wangparticipated in the harve sting of or g ans fr om 1988 to 1995, when he be g an re fusing to participate . When Wang voiced a n objection to the sche me as “ an uncivilized and immoral way of doing things,” the hospital require d Wang to sig n an agree ment that he would not re veal the or g an har vesting
sc he me “ to t

he me dia , th e fo re ig n c ountr ie s, or to o uts ide pa

rt ie s. ” B e sid e s h arv e sti ngthe sk in from executed pr isoners, Wangalso ca rried the corpse of an e x ecute d prisoner on a stretche r andBoth be fore the B I A and be fore this Court, W anghas maintained that cer tain portions of 1 his testimony , particula

rly the testimony

about his knowledg e of intentionally botched e x ecutions and the incide nt involving re moving the skin fr om a living pr isoner, we re mistranslate d. The above a ccount of

his testimony

befor e the I J , howeve r, is drawn exclusively from testimony

the acc urac y of which Wangdoes not dispute, including the independe nt translation of his testimony that Wang submitted to the B I A and this Court. For instanc e, in the tra nslation that W ang submitt ed, which he maintains is accur ate, he admitted that in one incident, “[a]fter we remove d kidney and skin, the prisoner

still had bre ath, and still had very weak pulse.” In another tr ans latio n Wangsu

bmi tte d, he a dmi tte d th a t “ so me tim e s th e g un man w ho wi ll f ir e the sh ot w ill rec eive indication to mi sfire intentionally so that the prisoner w ill not di e,” in or der to “ extend the life of the kidney s,” and that he knew a bout this practice be cause his “superior told [him] .” Wan g ’s du e pr oc e ss c la im b a se d o n a lle g e d mi str ans latio ns thu s f a ils , b e c a us e he ha s f

a ile d to identify any translation er

rors that sig nificantly

alter the meaningof his testimony as translated b y th e Imm i gra t i o nC o urt tra n s l at o r, an d h e t h er ef o re h as n o td em o n s tra t edth at th e p ro ce ed i n gs wer e so fundamentally

unfair a s to violate his due proce ss rig hts. See A ugustin v. Sava , 735 F.2d 32, 38 (2d Cir. 1984). F or the same rea sons, Wang’ s claim of inef fec tive assistance of his former counsel is without merit. Se e Ra biu v . I NS , 4 1 F .3 d 8 79 , 8 82 (2 d Ci r. 19 94 ) ( ho ldi ngthat in order to demonstrate inef

fec tive assistance of counse l, an alien must show, inte r a lia , “that c omp e te nt c ouns e l w ou ld h ave a c te d o the rw ise ,” and “ that [th e a lie n] w a s p re

jud ic e d b y

his counsel’s pe rfor

mance ” (inter

nal quotation marks omitted)).

4 a dmi nis te re d a

nti -c lottin g me dic a tio n to a liv ingpr iso ne r i n o rd e r t o e xten d th e via bil ity of his kidney s after

his ex ecution, althoug h he told the prisoner that the medication was a tra nquiliz er that would preve nt unnece ssary suffe ring . Acc ording to Wang, he lear ned fr om his superior that some executions were intentionally botched, that is, the e x ecutioner would intentionally

misfire so that the prisoner did not die, to extend the life of the kidney s befor e tra nsplantation. Wang also testified that he ha d once r emoved the skin of a prisoner who was still alive afte r a botc hed execution. Wan g c la ime d th a t th e Chi ne se g ov e rnme nt w ou ld p e rs e c ute and tor tur e him , asser ting that the g overnme nt had re sponded to testimony he g ave be fore Congr ess about the org an-ha rvestingscheme by

identifying him as a

traitor in the new s and by seekinginformation about his where abouts from his wife
. 1 In Augus t 20 05 , th e I J issu e d a de c isi on de nying Wan g ’s a

pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum ,5

withholding of r emoval under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), a

nd withholding of r emoval under the CAT, but gr anting Wang de fer ral of r emoval under

the CAT. In her de cision, the I J conclude d, inter alia, that Wang wa s ineligible f or asy lum, withholdi ng of re moval under 8 U .S.C. § 1231(b)( 3), and w ithholding of re moval under the CAT for ha ving w illfully

committed a serious nonpolitical crime, namely torture. How ever , the I J g rante d Wang de fer ral of r emoval under

the CAT, concludingthat if Wang wer e re moved to China, g overnme nt officials would likely torture him for re vealingstate sec rets and publicly humiliating the Chinese g overnme nt. Wang a ppeale d the I J ’s dec ision to t he B I A, ar g uing, a mong othe r thing s, that the I J err ed in finding that he had c ommitt ed a se rious nonpolitical crime. The g overnme nt also appea led the I J’s d e c isi on

to t he B I A, arguin g that th e I J er re d in c on c lud ingthat Wang

e sta bli sh e d e lig ibi lity for de fer ral of r emoval under

the CAT. In November

2007, the B I A dismissed the appea ls, adopting a nd aff irming the I J ’s decision. As re levant her e, the B I A ag ree d with the I J ’s deter mination that W angwas not elig ible for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval under 8 U .S.C. § 1231(b)(3), or w ithholding of
remova l under the CAT be cause there wer e “se rious rea sons to believe that the r espondent eng ag ed in a se rious nonpolitical offense befor e comingto the United States.” T h e B IA
concur red w ith the I J ’s findingthat the org an extraction prog ram would be considere d criminal in the United States and unde r international law. The B I A furthe r conc luded that, eve n if Wang
wer e other

wise elig ible for a sylum, it would deny him such relief

as a matter of discr etion beca use his actions in the org an extraction prog ram we re “ sufficie ntly repugnant and atrocious, . . . involv[ ing] extraction of tissue from pe rsons who may not have be en dea d at the time of the extraction, . . . injecting condemne d prisoners with hepa rin so as to prese rve the ir org ans af ter6

e xec uti on , w hil e le avin g the vic tim s w ithan im pr e ssi on that th e inj e c tio ns we re pe rf or me d to
ease ag ony

and pain a ssociated with execution.” F inally , the B I A held that, eve n assuming the tr uth of Wan g ’s a sse rt ion

that he wa s n ot i nv olv e d in the e xtra c tio n o f o rg ans or tis su e fr om a live prisoner, i.e. , to rt

ur e , th e se ri ou s n on

po lit ic a l c ri me ba

r w ou ld s til l be a

pp lic a ble in h is c a se due to his involvement in the g overnme nt’s scheme to remove or g ans for profit. Wang f

iled a tim e ly pe tit ion fo r r e vie w w iththi s Co ur t.

D I S C US S I ON Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“ I NA”) and its implementing re g ulations, the ag ency must deny

an application for asylum, withholdi ng of re moval under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3), and w ithholding of re moval under the CAT, if “ther e ar e ser ious reasons f or believingthat the alien ha s committed a serious nonpolitical cr ime outside the United States prior to t he arr iva l of

the a lie n in

the Un ite d St a te s. ” 8 U .S. C. § 11 58 (b )( 2) (A )( iii ); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3)(B )(iii); 8 C.F.R. §1208.16(d)( 2). The “ [s] erious re asons to believe” standard is the equivalent of

probable cause . Se e Kho uz am v . A sh c ro ft , 361 F.3d 161, 165- 66 (2d Cir. 2004). Deter mining whe ther somethingis a “ser ious nonpolit ical cr ime” involves, under the B I A’s int e rp re tatio n o f t

he statut e , c on sid e ri ngwh e the r “ ‘t he po lit ic a l a sp e c t of

the of fe ns e outw e ig h it s
c omm on -l aw c ha

ra c te r. Th is w ou ld n ot b e the c a se if the c ri me is g ro ssl y

out of pr op or tio n to the political objective or

if it involves acts of an a trocious nature .’” IN

S v . A gu irr e -A gu irr e , 526 U. S
. 4 1 5 , 4 2 9 (1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Matter of McM ullen , 19 I . & N . Dec . 90, 97-98 (B I A 1984)). Robbery and embe zz lement ar e examples of ser ious nonpolit ical cr imes. Ma tte r o f B alleste rGa rc ia , 1 7 I . & N. De c . 5 92 , 5 95 -9 6 ( B I A 1 98 0) (r ob be ry ); Ke ny e re

s v . A sh c ro

ft , 538 U.S. 1301,Although the g overnme nt corre ctly asser ts that we ac cord de fer ence to the BIA’s 1 construction of the I

NA under Chevron, U.S.A., I nc. v. Natural Resource

s DefenseCouncil, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984), a n I J ’s dec ision and a non-pr ece dential B I A dec ision, such as the decisions in this case, a

re not a ccor ded Chevron defe renc e. Uce lo-Gome z v. Gonzales , 464 F.3d 163, 169-70 (2d Cir. 2006). While we ha ve not y et dec ided whethe r unpublished, sing le-membe r BIA dec isions are e ntitled to the lesser for m of defe renc e desc ribed in Skidmore v . Swift & Co. , 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944), se e Me nd is v . F ili p , 554 F.3d 335, 338 n.3 ( 2d Cir. 2009), we ne ed not consider the issue here as we would rea ch the same re sult reviewingthis petiti on de novo , see Ashton v. Gonzales , 431 F.3d 95, 97 ( 2d Cir. 2005). Although not dispositive, our dete rmination that the sale of org ans on the blac k marke t 2 is a serious nonpolitical cr ime finds further support in the g ener al conde mnation of this ty pe of behavior by the world c ommunity , including by China itself. See, e .g. , U.S. Dep’t of State, Chi na , Co un tr

y Re po rt s o n H uma

n Ri g hts Pr a c tic e s 2 00 3 ( statin g that a Min ist ry of He a lth direc tive in China provides that buying a nd selling huma

n org ans and tissues is prohibited), available at

http:// www.state .g ov/g/dr l/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.htm ; Europol Convention, Annex Refer red to in Art. 2 ( descr ibing the “ illicit t rade in human org ans and tissue” as a se rious form of international crime “ which Europol c ould deal with” unde r the Eur opol convention), av ail ab le at h t t p : //w w w . e ur o p o l
. e ur o p a . e u/ i n d e x . a s p ? p a g e = l e g a l c o n v # T IT LE % 2 0 I; World Health Org ., Guiding Princ iples on Human Org an Tra nsplantation, Guiding Principle 5 ( “The human body and its parts ca

nnot be the subjec t of commerc ial transac tions. According ly , g iving or rec eiving pay ment (includingany

other c ompensation or re war d) for org ans should be prohibited.” ), av ail ab leat htt

p:/ /w ww .w ho .int/e thi c s/t op ic s/tra ns pla ntatio n_ g uid ing

_p ri nc ipl e s/e n/i nd e x1.h tml ; id. Guiding Princ iple 2 (“Phy sicians deter mining that the de ath of a potential donor has oc curr ed should not be directly

involved in org an re moval from the donor and subseque nt transplantation 7 1 3 0 2 (K en n ed y , C i rc u i tJ u s t i ce 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g In re Castellon , 17 I . & N . Dec . 616 (B I A 1981)) (embe zz lement). When the BIA adopts the de cision of the I J and supplements the I J ’s dec ision, we revie w the dec ision of the I J as supplemented by the B I A. See Yan C

hen v. G onzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We re view de novo constitutional challeng es and que stions of law. Bah v. Mukase y , 529 F.3d 99, 110 ( 2d Cir. 2008). 1 We ag ree with the BIA’s dete rmination that participation in a “ scheme to dece ive prisoners a

nd their fa

milies, and to sell org ans on a bla ck mar ket” is a se rious nonpolitical crime. Th e Un ite d St a te s r e c og nize s a s c ri min a l th e a c t of ha rv e sti ngand

tr ans fe rr ingor g ans fo r p ro fi t. 2proce dures . . . .” ).

That the tre atment of c onduct as a crime in the U nited States is an important 3 consideration in determining whether the conduc t constitutes a “ser ious . . . crime” f or purpose s of the I NA is in acc ord with the B I A’s dec ision in Ma tte r o f B alleste r- Ga rc ia , 17 I . & N . Dec
. 592, 595 (B I A 1980) (stating that “ such fa ctors as the alien’s de scription of the c rime, the turpitudinous nature of the c rime ac cordingto our prec edents, the va lue of a ny proper ty involved, the leng th of sentenc e imposed and se rved, a nd theus ua l pu nis hm e nts im po se d fo r c om

pa ra ble offenses in the United States , are all proper considerations in attempti ng to decide whether or not a cr ime may

have be en ser ious” (empha sis added)) . Be cause we a re r eviewingthe B I A’s nonprec edential de cision in W ang ’s ca se de novo , and bec ause ne ither par ty addre sses the issue, we e x press no opinion as to how the B I A’s ar ticulation of these f

actor s in Ba lle

ste r- Ga rc ia sh ou ld b e tr e a te d b y

our C ourt

in o the r c a se s. 8 See 42 U.S.C. § 274e(a) & ( b) (p ro vid ingthat “ [i]t sh a ll b e un lawf ul f or any pe rs on to k no wi ng ly
a c qu ir e , r e c e ive , o r o the rw ise tr ans fe r a ny human o rg an f

or va lua ble c on sid e ra

tio n f or us e in human transplantation if the transfe r af fec ts interstate commer ce” and that any person e ng ag ing in such prac tice “sha ll be fined not more tha n $50,000 or imprisoned not more than f ive y ear s, or both”). This alone leads us to conc lude that the sche me at issue her e wa s a ser ious crime. 3 Fur ther, ther e is no indication in this record that the scheme at issue her e had a ny “political aspec t” or “ political objective.” Se e Aguir re -A gu irr e , 526 U.S. at 429 (interna l quotation marks omi tte d) . A c c or din g ly , th e B I A c or re c tly de te rm ine d th a t pa

rt ic ipatio n in

su c h a sc he me is a serious nonpolitical crime. Moreove r, the B I A cor

rec tly deter mined that there wer e ser ious reasons to believe that Wan g wa s invo lve d in

thi s c ri me , g ive n th a t Wanghim se lf a dmi ts t hat he wa s k

no wi ng ly involved in the Chinese g overnme nt’s scheme to profit from the ha rvestingand tra

nsplantation of
or g ans re mov e d f

ro m e xec ute d p ri so ne rs wi tho ut t he ir c on se nt. As the ag ency

corr ectly found that the ser ious nonpolit ical cr ime bar r ender ed Wang ineligible f

or asylum, withholdi ng of re moval under 8 U .S.C. § 1231(b)(3), a nd withholding of9

re mov a l un de r t

he CA T b e c a

us e of his inv olv e me nt i n th e Chi ne se g ov e rnme nt’ s sc he me to harve st and sell org ans on the blac k marke t, we nee d not consider Wang ’s cha lleng es to the B I A’ s a lte rn a tiv e c on c lus ion s th a t Wangc omm itt e d a no the r s e ri ou s n on

po lit ic a l c ri me , n ame ly torture, that the pe rsec utor bar r ender ed him ineligible f or such r elief, or

that the B I A would deny Wang a sylum as a matter of discretion. F inally , we note that the g overnme nt did not appeal the BIA’s dec ision to affirm the I J ’s g rant of Wang ’s application for def err al of re moval under the CAT, and ther efor e Wangrema ins the benef iciary of this relief.

C ONC L US I ON For the fore g oing r easons, we DENY the petition for re view.