2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-16-2005 

# Hua n g v . Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-1796

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion " Hua n g v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 542. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/542C ap ti o n am en d ed p u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P ro. 43 (c). 1 1 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. 04- 1796 KAI T I NG HUA NG, Pet i t i oner v. A L B E R T O G O N Z A L E S , A t t or ney G ener al of t he 1 U ni t ed St at es R e sp o n d e n t. O n pet i t i on for r evi ew of a f i nal or der 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 77- 353- 862 Subm i t t ed pur s uant t o T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

on J une 2, 2005 Be f o r e : F UENTE S , GREE NBERG a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: Sept ember 16, 2005 )

______________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________________2

F u e n te s , C i r cui tJudge . Pe t i t i one r Ka i Ti ng Huang appe a l s the de c i s i on of the Boar d of I mm i gr a t i on Appe a l s ( BI A) a ffi rm i ng the i mm i gr a t i on judge ’ s ( I J ) de ni a l of a s yl um , wi thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and pr ot e c t i on unde r the Conve nt i on Aga i ns t

Tort ur e ( CAT) . Be c aus e the B I A ’ s d e c i s i o n w a s s up p o rt e db y s ub s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e , w e w i l l a f f i rm. I. Fact s andProcedural Hist ory A s w e w rite o n ly

f o r th e p arties, w e recite o n ly th e essen tial f

acts. H u an g is a n ativ e o f C h in a. H e alleg es th at in M ay 1 9 9 8 , less th an th ree m o n th s af ter th e b irth o f

h is daug hter , gov er

nm ent a utho ri ti es fo rc ibly

im plante d an IUD in his wife. Hu ang all eges that the I UD m al fu ncti on ed and h is wife becam e pre gn ant a gain in October 200 0. In an ef f o rt to ev ad e f

am ily p lan n in g o f

f icials, H u an g ’s w if

e m o v edto an o th er ap artm en t. N ev erth eless, in M arch 2 0 0 1 , au th o rities w ere ab le to lo cate h er an dsh e w as f o rcedto have an abort i on. Huang c l a i m s tha t the I UD wa s r e pl ant e d i n Apr i l 2001 and tha t he wa s fi ne d 10, 000 RMB ( or “ Re nm i nbi ” ) . Huang l e ft Chi natha t

s am e m onth for

the U n itedS tates. At his a ir po rt inte rvie w, Hu ang told an imm igrati on of fice r that he was m ar

ri ed but s e par a t e d fr om

hi s wi fe , and tha t

the y have one daught e r . He s a i d ha d c om e t o the U n itedS tates to “lo o kf

o r a j o b an dto stay

h ere.” Wh en ask edis h e w o u ldb e h arm edif retu rn edto C h in a, h e resp o n d edth at h e w o u ld , b ecau se h e o w edh is f rien dm o n ey . H u an g later to ldimm ig ratio n o f f icials th at h e h adf

ledC h in a b ecau se o f

h u m an rig h ts3

v io latio n s, an dd escrib edth e ab o v e ev en ts. In May 20 01 , the INS initi at ed re m ov al proceedi ng s a gainst Hu ang u nd er

8 U. S. C. § 1182( a ) ( 6) ( C) ( i ) . Huang c onc e de d r e m ovabi l i ty but appl i e d for

r e l i e f fr om depo rt at ion. Th e I J denie d h is cl ai m s i n O ct ob er 20 02 . I n M ar ch 20 04 , the BIA revers ed the fi ndi ng tha t

Huang’ s appl i c a t i on wa s fr i vol ous , but c onc urr e d wi th the I Jtha t Huang ha d fa i l e d t o m e e t

hi s bur de n of pr oof wi th r e gar d t o e l i gi bi l i ty for a s yl um , wi thhol di ng o f rem o v al, o r relief

u n d er C A T . T h e B IA also af f irm edth e IJ’s ad v erse cred ib ility de t e rm i nat i on , fo r

the r e a s on s s t a t e d b y

the I J . Hu ang no w a

pp e a l s the or de r

of the BI A. I I . Di s c us s i on W e r evi ew t he B I A and I J ’ s deci s i ons under t he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. See G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . W e conc l ude t hat t he I J ’ s de c i s i on, an dth e B IA ’s af

f irm an ce o f

it, w ere sup p o rtedb y

a n u m b er o f f acto rs. Firs t, Hu ang d id no t i niti al ly re pres ent that he was in dang er in Ch ina but inst ea d in d icatedth at h e cam e to th e U n itedS tates f o r em p lo y m en t p u rp o ses an dth at h e w o u ld be harm e d i f he r e t

urne d be c aus e he owe d m one y t o afr i e nd. W e ar e c aut i ous i n our re li ance on ai rport i nter

views, and, st anding al on e, inconsis te ncie s between st at em ents at su ch an in terv iew an dat later p ro ceed in g s w ill n o t sup p o rt an ad v erse cred ib ility d eterm in atio n . S ee B alasub ram an rim v . IN S , 1 4 3 F .3 d1 5 7 , 1 6 4 (3 dC ir.1 9 9 8 ). Ne ve rthe l e s s , t og e the r

wi th the othe r

fa c t or s pr e s e nt

i n thi s c a s e , di s c us s e d b e l ow , we beli eve the cl ear answers that Hu ang g ave t o imm igrati on of fici al s upo n h is ar

ri val4

u n d erm in e th e cred ib ility o f h is claim s. A sec on d set

of fact ors s up po rt ing the IJ ’s advers e c re dibili ty dete rm inat ion are a num be r of i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n Huang’ s t e s t i m ony . Huang a t one poi nt

i ndi c a t e d tha t

he le ft Ch ina i n 2 00 0 b ut on another occa si on that he le ft in 20 01 . He a ls o f ir st indicate d that se ven o r e ight of

fici al s c am e t o retri eve his wife fo r an abo rt ion and late r c la im ed tha t s i x or s e ve n offi c i a l s c am e . The s e ar e m i nor i nc ons i s t e nc i e s and “ [g]e ne r a l l y , m i nor inconsis te ncie s . . . that

re veal no thing abo ut an as ylum applic ant' s fear for his s afety ar e not an a de qua t e ba s i s for

an a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty

fi ndi ng. ” Be r i s ha

j v. As hc r oft , 378 F. 3d 314, 323 ( 3d Ci r . 2004) ( quot a t i ons and c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . Howe ve r , Huang’ s c onfus i on with re spec t t o the deta il s of h is cl ai m m ay be te ll ing in con

ju ncti on with a m ore sig n if ican t in co n sisten cy

reg ard in g w h eth er h e w as h o m e w h en th e au th o rities cam e to re tr ie ve his wife for a forced aborti on . Huang te st ifie d that he andhis wife wer e both at hom e but the n t e s t i fi e d tha t

he wa s out

and wa s l a t e r

t ol d wha t

ha d happe ne d. W e c annot di s m i s s thi s i nc ons i s t e nc y about the e ve nt a t the he art of Huang’ s a s yl um

c l a i m a s the re sult of m er e ner vo usness beca

use tho ug h H uang re it er at ed in his t es ti m on y that he was no t hom e, in the s up plem ent t o h is as ylum applic at ion, he st at es that he and h is wife were a t hom e s l e e pi ng whe n abi rth c ontr ol c a dr e c am e for hi s wi fe . I n tha t

s t a t e m e nt , he r e c ount s havi ng be gge d the offi c i a l s not t o t ake hi s wi fe t o the hos pi t a l for an abort i on, o r a t th e l e a s t , t o a l l o w H u an g t o a c c o m p an y h e r . W e b e l i e v e th a t th i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y, com bined w it h H uang ’s st at em ents to im m igrati on of

fici al s upo n h is ar

ri val i n the Un it ed5

St a t e s , s upport

the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on. H u an g arg u es th at w h atev er th e IJ's credib ility d eterm in atio n , it w as o b lig atedto ex p lain w h y

it d idn o t g iv e w eig h t to th e d o cu m en ts H u an g sub m itted , w h ich w o u ld dem on strate , at l ea st , that his wife un derwent the IUD and aborti on procedures. Bu t at the heari ng , the IJdid g ive a re as on fo r e xcluding thes e docum ents , i .e ., that they were not c e rt i fi e d pur s uant

t o 8 C. F. R. § 287. 6. Si nc e the pr oc e e di ngs be for e the I Jand the BI A – but

s e ve r a l m onths be for e Huang’ s appe a l wa s br i e fe d be for e thi s Court – we have he l d that “ 8 C. F. R. § 287. 6 i s not

an abs ol ut e r

ul e of e xc l us i on, and i s not the e xc l us i ve m ean s o f au th en ticatin g reco rd s b ef o re an imm ig ratio n j u d g e.” G u i C u n L iuv . A sh cro f t, 3 7 2 F .3 d5 2 9 , 5 3 3 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 4 ). U n f o rtu n ately , H u an g f

ailedev en to raise th is e vi de nt i ary

i s s ue on appe a l , i ns t e a d m a i nt a i ni ng, e rr one ous l y , tha t the I Jdi d not

m e nt i on the doc um e nt s or

gi ve any e xpl ana t i on for

fa i l i ng t o c ons i de r

the m . Huang di d not m e nt i on a t

a l l the r e gul a t i on on whi c h the I Je xpl i c i t l y r e l i e d. Ac c or di ngl y , we de e m the i s s ue wa i ve d. Fo r a l l the fo r e go i ng r e a s on s , we wi l l de ny the pe t i t i onfo r

r e vi e w.