FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J ANUARY 6, 2011
J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 0- 12 45 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 78 -6 90 -8 23

YUE MEI DING,

Pet it io ne r,

ve rs us

U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL,

Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a Deci si on of t he Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 6, 2 01 1)

Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d M ARTIN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:Yui Mei Din g, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen o f t h e P e op le ’s Rep ub li c of Ch in a, se ek s

rev ie w of th e fin al or de r of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (“ BIA”)
, affi rm in g th e

op in io n of th e Im

m ig rat io n Ju dg e (“ IJ ”) an d di sm is si ng Din g’s cl ai m s fo r as y lu m an d

wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (“ INA”), 8 U.S.C.

§§ 11 58
, 12 31

. On ap pe al
, Din g arg ue s th at : (1 ) su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce do es no t 1

su pp or t th e BIA’s de te rm in at io n th at sh e was in el ig ib le fo r as y lu m an d wit hh ol di ng

of rem ov al be cau se sh e fai le d to sh ow a well -fo un de d fear of fut ur e pe rs ecu ti on fo r

res is ti ng Ch in a’s co erci ve fam il y pl an ni ng po li ci es ; an d (2 ) th e BIA le ga ll y erre d in

req ui rin g her to es ta bl is h a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re p ers ecu ti on by sh owi ng th at

sh e (A) vi ol at ed th e Ch in es e go ve rn m en t’s co erci ve fam il y pl an ni ng po li ci es an d, (B)

wou ld “ ne ces sa ril y ” be su bjec t to pe rs ecu ti on up on ret ur n to Ch in a. Afte r th or ou gh

rev ie w, we den y

th e p et it io n.

In a cas e li ke th is , in whi ch th e BIA i ss ue d i ts own op in io n, we re vi ew “ on ly

th e de ci si on of th e BIA, ex cep t to th e ex te nt th e BIA e x p r e ss ly ad op ts th e IJ ’s

de ci si on .” Ro dr ig ue z Mo ral es v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
., 48 8 F.3 d 88 4, 89 0 (1 1th Ci r. 20 07 ).

Ding has aba

ndoned her

claim for r elief unde r the United N ations Convention Aga inst 1 Torture and Other

Cruel, I nhuman, or De g rading Treatment or Punishment because she fa ils to make more than a pa ssing r efe renc e to the cla im on appeal. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2005).

2Here, th e BIA is su ed it s own op in io n, up ho ld in g th e IJ ’s de ni al of as y lu m ,

wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al , and CAT rel ie f, so we on ly revi ew th e BIA’s d eci si on

.

W e rev ie w qu es ti on s of la w, in cl ud in g th e BIA’s st at ut or y in te rp ret at io ns , de

no vo

. Delg ad o v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
., 48 7 F.3 d 85 5, 86 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ); Ja gg ern au th

v. U.S. At t’y Gen ., 4 32 F.3 d 13 46 , 1 35 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). H o wev er, fo ll owi ng th e

pr in ci pl es of Ch ev ro n U.S.A., In c. v. Natu ral Res . De f. Co un ci l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 8 37

(1 98 4)
, whe n we rev ie w th e BIA’s co ns tru ct io n of a st at ut e th at it ad m in is te rs , we

“ wil l de fer to th e BIA’s in te rp ret at io n of [th e] st at ut e if it is reas on ab le an d do es no t

co nt rad ic t th e cl ear in te nt of Co ng res s.” Qui nc hi a v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
., 55 2 F.3 d 12 55
,

12 58 (11 th Cir . 2 00 8) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . In re vi ewin g a n a ge nc y ’s in te rp ret at io n

of a st at ut e un de r Ch ev ro n, th e fir st st ep of th e an al y si s is to d e t e r mi n e “w he th er

Co ng res s ha s di rect ly sp ok en to th e pr eci se qu es ti on at is su e. If th e in te nt of Co ng res s

is cl ear, th at is th e en d o f th e m at te r; fo r th e co ur t, as well as th e ag en cy , m us t gi ve

effe ct to th e un am

bi gu ou sl y ex pr es se d in te nt of Co ng res s.” Ch ev ro n, 46 7 U.S. at

84 2- 43

. Ho wev er, “ whe n a co ur t rev ie ws an ag en cy ’s co ns tru ct io n of th e st at ut e

whi ch it ad m in is te rs

. . . an d th e st at ut e is si le nt or am bi gu ou s w i t h r e s p ect to th e

sp eci fic is su e, th e qu es ti on fo r th e co ur t is whet he r th e ag en cy ’s an swe r is ba se d on

a pe rm is si bl e co ns tru ct io n of th e st at ut e.” Qui nc hi a, 55 2 F.3 d at 12 58 (q uo ta ti on an d

al te rat io ns om it te d)

.

3Fi na ll y , we r ev ie w f in di ng s of fact fo r su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he m

.

Kaze mza d e h v

. U.S. Att ’y Gen
., 57 7 F.3 d 13 41
, 13 50 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). Und er th e

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce te st , we vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e l i gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

ag en cy ’s de ci si on an d dr aw al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th at de ci si on

. Id

. at

13 51

. Thi s rev ie w fo r su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce is hi gh ly de fere nt ia l: “ To rev ers e fact ua l

fin di ng s by th e Bo ard
, w e must fin d th at th e reco rd no t on ly su pp or ts rev ers al
, bu t

co m pe ls it

. The m ere fact th at th e reco rd m ay su p p o rt a co nt rary co nc lu si on is no t

en ou gh to jus ti fy a rev ers al of th e ad m in is tra ti ve fin di ng s.” Id

. ( q u o t a t i o ns ,

al te rn at io ns , and cit at io n o m it te d)

.

The INA gi ve s th e Att or ne y Gen er a l o r t h e Secr et ary of Hom el an d Secu rit y

di sc ret io n to gr an t as y lu m to an y no n- ci ti zen who m eet s th e de fin it io n of “ refu ge e.”

8 U.S.C. § 11 58 (b )(1 )(A). A refu ge e is de fin ed as:

an y pe rs on who is ou ts id e an y co un try of s uc h per so n’s nat io na li ty

. . . an d wh o i s u na bl e or

un wil li ng to ret ur n t o, an d i s u na bl e o r un wil li ng to av ai l hi m se lf or he rs el f of th e pr ot ect io n of , t ha t co un try beca us e of
p e r s ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of

. . . po li ti cal op in io n.

8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). Sect io n 10 1( a)(4 2) (B) of th e INA fu rth er pr ov id es

as y lu m eli gi bi li ty for t he fol lo win g p ers on s:

a pe rs on who ha s be en fo rced to ab or t a pr eg na n c y or to un de rg o in vo lu nt ary s t e r i l i zat io n, or who ha s be en pe rs ecu te d fo r fai lu re or refu sa l to un de rg o su ch a pr oc ed ur e or fo r ot he r res is ta nc e to a co erci ve

4po pu la ti on co nt ro l pr og ram , sh al l be de em ed to ha ve be en pe rs ecu te d on

acco un t o f po li ti cal op in io n, an d a pe rs on who ha s a well fo un de d fear th at he or sh e wil l be fo rced to un de r g o su ch a pr oc ed ur e or su bjec t to pe rs ecu ti on fo r su ch fai lu re, ref u s a l
, o r res is ta nc e sh al l be de em ed to ha ve a well fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of po li ti cal op in io n.

8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(B)

. Th e as y lu m ap pl ic an t carr ie s th e bu rd en of pr ov in g

st at ut or y refu ge e st at us , an d th ereb y es ta bl is hi ng as y lu m el ig ib il it y

. Najjar v.

Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3d 12 62 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ).

“ To es ta bl is h el ig ib il it y fo r a s yl u m b as ed on a well -fo un de d fear of fu tu re

pe rs ecu ti on , th e ap pl ic an t mu s t p r ov e (1 ) a su bjec ti ve ly ge nu in e an d ob jecti ve ly

reas on ab le fear o f pe rs ecu ti on , t ha t is (2 ) on acco un t of a pr ot ect ed gr ou nd .” Si lv a

v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
., 44 8 F.3 d 12 29
, 12 36 (1 1t h Ci r. 2 0 06 ) (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. The ap pl ic an t m us t pr es en t “ sp eci fic
, de ta il ed fact s sh owi ng a go od reas on

to fear th at he or sh e wil l be si ng le d ou t fo r pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of [th e pr ot ect ed

gr ou nd ]. ” Sep ul ve da
, 40 1 F.3 d at 12 31

. Howev er, th e ap pl ic an t ne ed no t sh ow th at

sh e wil l be si ng le d ou t if s h e c a n es ta bl is h th at he r co un try en ga ge s in a pa tt ern or

pr act ic e of pe rs ecu ti on of a gr ou p of si m il arl y si tu at ed pe rs on s on acco un t of a

pr ot ect ed gr ou nd

. Meh m et i v. U.S. Att ’y Gen
., 57 2 F.3 d 11 96
, 12 00 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ).

Not ab ly, an al ie n who fai ls to es ta bl is h th at sh e ha s a well -fo un de d f ear of

pe rs ecu ti on ne ces sa ril y fai ls to es ta bl is h el ig ib il it y fo r wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. Id

.

5As to what co ns ti tu te s a well -fo un de d fear, t he Su pr em e Co ur t h as ex pl ai ne d

“ th at so lo ng as an ob

jecti ve si tu at io n is es ta bl is he d by t he ev id en ce, it ne ed no t be

sh own th at th e si tu at io n wil l pr o b a b l y r e s u lt in pe rs ecu ti on , bu t it is en ou gh th at

pe rs ecu ti on is a reas on ab le po ss ib il it y .” I.N.S. v. Card o za-F on se ca, 48 0 U.S. 42 1,

44 0 (1 98 7) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Howev er, th e Su pr em e Co ur t de cl in ed to el ab or at e

fu rth er an d, i ns te ad , ob se rv ed th at

[t]he re is ob vi ou sl y so m e am bi gu it y in a te rm li ke “ well -fo un de d fear” whi ch can on ly be gi ve n co nc ret e m ea n i n g t h ro ug h a pr oc es s of

cas e-b y -c a se ad

jud ic at io n. In th at pr oc es s of fil li ng an y ga p le ft, im pl ic it ly or ex pl ic it ly, by Co ng re s s , t he co ur ts m us t res pe ct th e in te rp ret at io n of th e ag en cy to whi ch Co ng res s ha s de le ga te d th e

res po ns ib il it y

for ad m in is te rin g t he st at ut or y pro gr am

.

Id . at 4 48 (qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

The BIA ha s de te rm in ed th at th ere is ob jecti ve ev id en ce su pp or ti ng a ge nu in e

fear of ret ur ni ng to Ch in a if th e al ie n s h o w s ( 1 ) “t h e de ta il s of th e fam il y pl an ni ng

po li cy rel ev an t to [h er],” (2 ) “ th e al ie n vi ol at ed th e po li cy ,” an d (3 ) “ th e vi ol at io n of

th e fam il y pl an ni ng po li cy wou ld be pu ni sh ed in th e lo cal area in a way th at wou ld

gi ve ris e to an ob

jecti ve fear of fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on .” In re J- H-S-, 24 I.&N. Dec. 19 6,

19 8- 99 (BIA 20 07 ), pe t. fo r rev ie w de ni ed su b no m

. Sh ao v. Mu ka se y , 54 6 F.3 d 13 8

(2 d C ir. 2 00 8) ; s ee al so In r e J- W -S-, 2 4 I.& N. Dec. 18 5, 1 85 -8 9 (B IA 20 07 ).

6Here, th e BIA di d no t le ga ll y err i n r e q u i r in g Din g to de m on st rat e th at sh e

vi ol at ed Ch in a’s co erci ve fam il y pl an ni ng po li cy be cau se th e req u i r e men t, as

art ic ul at ed in th e BIA’s th ree- pa rt te st fo r de te rm in i n g w h et he r a ge nu in e fear of

ret ur ni ng to Ch in a is ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le
, is a reas on ab le in te rp ret at io n of th e te rm

“ well -fo un de d fear ” in 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(B)

. In de ed
, Din g ha s no t arg ue d th at

t he BIA’s co ns tru ct io n of § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(B) was un reas on ab le or at od ds wi t h t h e

le gi sl at iv e in te nt , an d th us , ha s ab an do ne d an y arg um en t to th at en d. Sep ul ve da
, 40 1

F.3 d at 12 28 n.2

. Nor di d th e BIA req ui re Din g to de m on st rat e th at sh e “ ne ces sa ril y ”

wou ld be pe rs ecu te d in or de r to es ta bl is h a well -fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on , as Din g

arg ue s. Rat he r, th e BIA fo un d th at th ere w a s no pa tt ern or pr act ic e of pe rs ecu ti on

a g a i n s t res po nd en ts in pr eced en ti al BIA de ci si on s pr ed ic at ed on th e bi rth of U.S.

ci ti z e n c h il dr en an d th at Din g’s do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce was no t m at eri al ly

di st in gu is ha bl e fro m th e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th os e cas es

. Thu s, BIA di d no t le ga ll y

err i n a pp lying J-H- S- t o Di ng

.

Fu rth er, su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or t s t h e fin di ng th at Din g fai le d to

de m on st rat e th at sh e ha s a well -fo un de d fear of fo rced st eri li zat io n or a fin e ris in g to

th e le ve l of pe rs ecu ti on fo r res is ti ng Ch in a’s co erci ve fam il y pl an ni ng po li ci es

.

Alt ho ug h th e do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce su bm it te d in t h i s c a se ci te s rep or ts of fo rced

st eri l i z a t i o n s fro m Fu

jian Pro vi nc e, th e reco rd as a who le in di cat es th at Ch in a’s

7fam il y pl an ni ng po li cy is la rg el y de pe nd en t up on eco no m ic in cen ti ve s an d pe na lt ie s

an d, th us , do es no t co m

pe l th e co nc lu si on th at th ere is a pa tt ern or pr act ic e in Fu jian

Pro vi nc e of fo rci bl y st eri li zi ng wom en li ke Din g or th at Din g pe rs on al ly face s fo rced

st eri li zat io n if ret ur ne d to Ch in a. Mo reo ve r, Din g’s pa rti cu la riz ed ev id en ce do es no t

al te r th is co nc lu si on

. As a res ul t, sh e ha s fai le d to m eet he r bu rd en of pr oo f fo r

as y lu m

. Bec au se sh e fai le d to m eet he r bu rd en of pr oo f fo r as y lu m , Din g al so fai le d

to m eet th e hi gh er bu rd en req ui r e d f or wit hh ol di ng of rem ov al

. Acco rd in gl y , we

de ny the pe ti ti on in th es e reg ard s.

DENIE D.

8