2005 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 11-3-2005 

# W ang 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 . 04-4082

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_2005

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 2005 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 " W an g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 267. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/267NOT 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- 4082 DA WANG,

Pet i t i oner v. A t t orneyG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es

R es pondent

____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of the D eci s i on 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 96 204 249

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

O ct ober21, 2005 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, V A N A N T W E R P E N and A L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: N ovember3, 2005)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge.

### 2

T h is p e tit io n f

o r re v iew o f

th e f in a l o rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( “B I A ”) as ks us t o deci de ( 1) w hetherthe Pet i t i oner , D a W ang ( “W ang”) , a nat i ve and c iti z e n o f

th e P e o p le’ s R e p u b lic o f C h in a , w a s p ro p e rlyp lac e d in a sy lu m -o n ly p roc ee d ing s, an d (2) w h ethe r sub stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the Im m igrati o n Ju d g e’s ( “I J ”) adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s or der pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ct s , pr ocedur al hi s t oryand cont ent i ons pr es ent ed, w e w i l l notr eci t e them exceptas nece s s aryt o the d is c u s s io n . II. W ang t es t i fi ed thathe l eftC hi na t o come t o the U ni t ed St at es beca us e of “ Fal un G ong per s ecut i on. ” W hen as ked how he w as per s ecut ed, he r epl i ed: “I pr act i ce the Fal un G o n g o rg a n iza tio n . I su f f e re d p e rse c u tio n .” H e tes tifie d th a t a f rie n d in tro d u c e d h im to th e o rg a n iza tio n in Ju ly2 0 0 2 b ytak in g h im to a “ g a th e rin g ,” a n d c o n ten d e d th a t h e d id notknow thathe had a t t ended a Fal un G ong m eet i ng unt i l aft erw ar ds . W hen as ked w hat h e d id a t th e g a th e ri n g , h e s a id it w a s “ lik e a b ir th d a yp a rt y .” D ur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on, W ang s ai d thats om eone s poke aboutFal un G ong dur i ng the meet i ng. W hen as ked t o r econc i l e hi s t es t i m onythathe di d notpayatt ent i on at the meet i ng and had t o be t ol d aft erw ar ds thati tw as a Fal un G ong m eet i ng, W ang w asT he I J found that : ( 1) W ang di d notadequa t el yexpl ai n exac t l yw hathe w as doi ng 1 dur i ng the meet i ng i f i ti s true, as he cont ends , thathe di d notl i s t en t o the s peake r s and d id n o t re a lize th a t th e m e e tin g w a s a F a lu n G o n g m e e tin g ; (2 ) h e f irst te stif ied th a t h e d id notl i s t en t o s peake r s atthe meet i ng and di d notknow the purpos e of the meet i ng, but late r te stif

ied th a t h e w a s a w a re th a t th e sp e a k e rs w e re d isc u ss in g F a lu n G o n g ; (3 ) h is tes tim o n yth a t h e a tten d e d six F a lu n G o n g m e e tin g s c o n f licts w ith h is s tate m e n t in h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n th a t h e a tten d e d “ a c o u p le” o f m e e tin g s; (4 ) h is te stim o n yth a t h e d id n o t ac tu a llyp ra c tice F a lu n G o n g is in c o n sis ten t w ith h is te stim o n yth a t (a ) h e a tten d e d six m eet i ngs and ( b) he medi t at ed al ong w i th the otherpeopl e atthe meet i ng; ( 5) he t es t i fi ed thathe att ended a n E ngl i s h l anguage s chool fr om 1996 t o 1999, buti n hi s as y l um appl i cat i on he s ai d he att ended the s chool fr om 1999 t o 2002; ( 6) i ti s i m pl aus i bl e thathe 

### 3 u n a b le to e x p la in th is c o n tr a d ic tio n . W ang t es t i fi ed thaton M ar ch 2, 2003, he l earned fr om hi s m otherthathi s fr i end w as arr es t ed and be at en by“publ i c s ecur i ty ” off i ci al s . H e w as al s o t ol d byhi s m other thata publ i c s ecur i tyguar d vi s i t ed hi s hom e l ooki ng forhi m . A l though hi s m otherw as n o t to ld w h yth e yw e re lo o k in g f o r h im , s h e a d v is e d h im to g o liv e w ith h is g ra n d m o th e r. W ang t es t i fi ed thatpubl i c s ecur i tycont i nued t o vi s i thi s hom e w hi l e he w as l i vi ng w i th hi s gr andmot her . T her eaf t er , W ang’ s m othert ol d hi m t o go t o I nnerM ongol i a. W ang t es t i fi ed thathe w or ked i n a s t eel fac t oryther e fr om A pr i l 1, 2003 t o O ct ober22, 2003, and thathe dec i ded t o l eave the countryaft erthr ee publ i c s ecur i tyoffi ci al s , one of w hom he r ecogni zed a s bei ng fr om hi s hom e t ow n, arr i ved atthe fa ct ory . H e cont ended th a t th e yw e re lo o k in g f o r h im , b u t w h e n a sk e d h o w th e se o f f icia ls c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d h im in In n e r M o n g o lia , W a n g c o n c e d e d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w . T he I J m ade a n adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on bas ed on numer ous fac tual fin d ing s an d d en ied W an g ’s ap p li ca ti o n fo r asy lum an d w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. T h e IJ

1w o u ld b e a b le to a rra n g e to b e sm u g g led o u t o f C h in a in a m e re f

o u r d a y s b e c a u se it u s u a l l yt a k e mo n th s t o c o mp l e t e a r r a n g e me n t s ; ( 7 ) h i s t e s t i mo n yr e v e a l s th a th e “ k n o ws v irtu a llyn o th in g a b o u t th e p ra c tice ” o f F a lu n G o n g n o tw ith sta n d in g h a v in g a tten d e d six m eet i ngs ; ( 8) he nodded hi s head w hen ques t i ons w er e pos ed t o hi m i n E ngl i s h befor e the tr ans l at i on, s ugges t i ng thathe know s m or e Engl i s h than he l ead the I J t o bel i eve a nd t hat hi s r eal r eas on forcomi ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es w as t o l i ve w i th hi s father , w ho r es i des her e; and ( 9) he attr i but ed the publ i c s ecur i ty ’ s s ear ch forhi m t o hi s att endanc e atthe m eet i ng w i thoutm aki ng anyi nves t i gat i on i nt o w hetherthatw as the true r eas on. A cl ai m forr el i ef unde rthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e i s “ana l yt i cal l ys epar at e” 2 fr om both as y l um and w i thhol di ng of r emoval underthe I N A . Z ubeda v. A s hcr oft , 333 F. 3d 463, 476 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . A ccor di ngl y , an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng forpurpos es of deny i ng as y l um and w i thhol di ng of deport at i on cl ai m s does notpr ecl ude a pe t i t i onerfr om e sta b lish in g a c laim f

o r re lief u n d e r C A T . Id . W a n g , h o w e v e r, h a s n o t m e a n in g f u lly chal l enged the deni al of hi s C A T cl ai m befor e thi s C our t , and i ti s ther efor e w ai ved. See L ie v. A sh cro ft, 3 9 6 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 n . 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 

### 4 al s o concl uded thatW ang fa i l ed t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e. 2 III . Fal un G ong l i t er al l ym eans “pr act i ce of the w heel of l aw . ” I ti s a C hi nes e s pi r i tual p ra c tice w ith b e lief

s s im ilar to B u d d h ism a n d T a o ism . T h e a c tu a l n u m b e r o f f o llo w e rs is a m at t er of dis pu t e. T he o rgani zat i on i t sel f cl ai m s t o h ave 1 00 m i l l i on foll ow ers , i ncl udi ng 70 m i l l i on i ns i de C hi na. C urr entoffi ci al C hi nes e es t i m at es putthe numberat appr oxi m at el y10 m i l l i on. Th e P e o p l e ’ s Re p u b l i c o f Ch i n a , l e d b yth e Ch i n e s e Co mmu n i s tP a r ty , b e c a me conce rned w i th t he abi l i tyof Fal un G ong pr act i t i oner s t o gatheri n l ar ge demonstr at i ons al m os ti ns t ant aneous l y . O n J ul y20, 1999, the governm entbegan a nat i onw i deW a n g a p p e a rs n o t to h a v e u n d e rsto o d th a t h e h a d b e e n p lac e d in a sy lu m -o n ly 3 p ro c e e d in g s u n til th e B IA n o ted in its d e c isio n th a t th e IJ h a d e rro n e o u slyo rd e re d h im r emoved. T he A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ecor d, how ever , s how s that , pr i ort o appea r i ng befor e the I J , W ang and hi s att orneyw er e s erved w i th fours epar at e hea r i ng not i ces ent i t l ed “N ot i ce of A s y l um - O nl yH ear i ng. ” I n addi t i on, att ache d t o one of the N ot i ces i s a For m I - 863 N o tic e o f

R e f e rr a l to a n Im m ig ra tio n J u d g e , w h ic h s ta te s th a t W a n g is a V W P a p p lic a n t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e a re sa tisf ied th a t W a n g d id h a v e n o tice th a t h e h a d b e e n p lac e d in as y l um - onl ypr ocee di ngs , and s houl d have c hal l enged thi s cl as s i fi cat i on befor e the I J and th e BI A. 

### 5 s uppr es s i on of Fal un G ong. I tr efe rr ed t o the pr act i ce a s an “e vi l cul t ” s pr eadi ng s uper s t i t i on t o dece i ve the peopl e. T he C hi nes e C om m uni s tPar tycl ai m s thatFal un G ong has devi at ed i t s focus fr om engagi ng i n s pi r i tual cul t i vat i on t o engagi ng i n pol i t i cs , bas i ng i t s opi ni on on the exi s t ence of num er ous w eb s i t es unconnec t ed t o, y eti n s uppor tof, Fal un G ong. I V. W ang fi r s tchal l enges hi s pl ace m enti n as y l um - onl ypr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1187, w hi ch codi fi es the V i s a W ai verPr ogr am (“ V W P”) . U nderthe V W P, t he A tto rn e yG e n e ra l an d th e S e c re tar yo f S tate a re p e rm itt e d to a llo w a lien s f ro m c e rta in co u n tr ies t o en ter th e U n it ed S tat es f o r up to n inetyd ay s w ith o u t a visa. A li en s w h o are a d m itt e d o r a p p lyf

o r a d m iss io n u n d e r th e p ro g ra m a g re e to f o rf e it an yc h a llen g e to re m o v a l, e x c e p t o n th e b a s is o f a s y lu m . W a n g , h o w e v e r, d id n o t ra ise a c h a llen g e to h is p lac e m e n t in a sy lu m -o n ly pr ocee di ngs w i th ei therthe I J orthe B I A . A ccor di ngl y , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der 3 thi s cont ent i on. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( d) ( 1) ( “A courtm ayr evi ew a fi nal or derof r emovalB eca us e W ang i s a C hi nes e nat i onal and C hi na i s nota V W P country , he w as not 4 actual l yel i gi bl e foradmi s s i on underthe V W P. See 8 U . S. C . § 1187( b) ( r equi r i ng thatan a l i e n b e “ a n a t i o n a l o f

, a n d p r e s e n t s a p a s s p o r ti s s u e d b y , ” a p r o g r a m c o u n try ) . By s i gni ng the V i s a W ai verFor m and pr es ent i ng a J apane s e pas s por t , how ever , he qual i fi es as a n ap p li ca n t and is th ere fo re su b ject t o 8 C . F . R . § 2 1 7 . 4 (a)(1). 

### 6 onl yi f . . . the al i en has exhaus t ed al l admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e t o the al i en as of ri gh t . ”); Z hen g v . G on zal es, 42 2 F . 3d 98 , 10 7-108 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) ( “T he fa i l ure t o ex hau st thi s cl ai m befor e the B I A ‘ bar s cons i der at i on of part i cul arques t i ons notr ai s ed i n an ap p ea l t o the B o ard . ’”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). M o re o v e r, ev e n if

w e d id h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew W a n g ’s c h a llen g e to h is placem ent i n asy l um -onl yproceed i ng s, w e w ou l d rej ecti t . W ang si gn ed an 1-94W V i sa W ai verFor m and att empt ed t o ent erthe U ni t ed St at es as a V W P appl i cantus i ng a fr audul entJ apane s e pas s por t . U nder8 C . F. R . § 217. 4( a) ( 1) , an al i en w ho appl i es for 4 admi s s i on underthe V W P and pr es ent s fr audul enttr avel document s i s t o be r efus ed a d m iss io n a n d p lac e d in a sy lu m -o n lyp ro c e e d in g s. A c c o rd in g ly , W a n g w a s p ro p e rly placed i n asy l um -onl yproceed i ng s. V. 

### Wem ust next det er

mine whether

the I J c orre ctly

fo un d that W ang’s t es tim ony was no t c re dible. Beca

use the BIA ado pted and aff ir m ed the I J’ s dec is ion, we re view the I J’ s d ecisio n . Z h an g v . G o n zales, 4 0 5 F .3 d1 5 0 , 1 5 5 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Anasylum

ap p licant b ears th e b urd eno f sup p o rtin g h is claim

thro u g hcred ib le testim o ny . G ao v . A sh cro f t, 2 9 9 F .3 d2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ). We rev iewanadv erse

### 7

cred ib ility

f in d in g un d er th e sub stantial ev id en ce stan d ard , m ean in g th at w e w ill up h o ld the I J ’ s fi ndi ngs “ t o the e xt e nt that the y ar e ‘ s upport e d by

r e a s onabl e , s ubs t ant i a l , and pr obat i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c or d c ons i de r e d a s awhol e . ’ ” Ba l a s ubr am anri m v. INS, 143 F .3 d1 5 7 , 1 6 1 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (qu o tin g IN S v . E lias-Z acarias, 5 0 2 U .S . 4 7 8 (1 9 9 2 )). An a dve r s e c r e dibi l i ty

fi ndi ng s houl d be s upport e d by s pe c i fi c , c oge nt

r e a s ons for d isb eliev in g th e p etitio n er’s testim o ny . Id . at 1 6 1 -1 6 2 . T h e IJ w ill n o t b e rev ersedm erely b ecau se th is C o urt d isag rees w ithth e IJ’s ev alu atio no f th e f acts; it w ill b e af

f irm edso l ong a s the I J ’ s c onc lus i on i s s ubs t ant i a l ly r e a s onabl e . Di av. As hc r oft , 353 F. 3d 228, 249 (3d C ir .200 3) (e n b anc) (c iting E l Moraghy v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d19 5, 20 2 (3dCir. 2003) ) . De fe r e nc e t o an a dve r s e c r e dibi l i ty fi ndi ng, howe ve r , “ ‘ i s not due whe r e fi ndi ngs and con clusions are bas ed oninfere nces or pres um ptions that

ar e not re as on ably

ground ed in the rec ord.’”Id. ( qu oting E l Moraghy , 331 F.3dat 20 2). H er e, w e conc l ude thatthe I J r eas onabl ydeni ed W ang’ s as y l um and w i thhol di ng of re m o v a l ap p lica tio n s b e c a u se h e f a iled to c a rryh is b u rd e n to p ro v e h is s tatu to rye lig ib ili ty w i th cr edi bl e, di r ectand s peci fi c evi dence . T he di s cr epanc i es , contr adi ct i ons and im p lau sib ili ties in W a n g ’s te stim o n yg o to th e h e a rt o f h is c laim . A s th e IJ n o ted , itis r el at i vel yeas yforan as y l um - s eeke rt o fal s el ycl ai m per s ecut i on bas ed on per cei ved m ember s hi p i n a gr oup s uch as Fal un G ong. A n appl i cantneed notactual l yknow an ything ab o u t Fa lun G o n g , b u t m ayclaim eli g ibil ityb ec au se o f th e C h ines e g o v ern m en t’ s cr ackdow n on per cei ved s uppor t er s . W ang’ s i ncons i s t enci es r egar di ng the numberof

### 8

m eet i ngs he att ended, hi s vague de s cr i pt i ons of w hatoccurr ed atthe meet i ngs , and hi s l ack o f k n o w led g e re g a rd in g F a lu n G o n g a f ter h a v in g a lleg e d lya tten d e d six m e e tin g s a ll u n d e rm in e d h is c re d ib ility b e f o re th e IJ . I n hi s br i ef, W ang has fai l ed t o s peci fi cal l ychal l enge a nyof the numer ous defi ci enci es det ai l ed bythe I J . E ven i f w e w er e t o conce de thats om e of the i ncons i s t enci es and i m pl aus i bi l i t i es ci t ed bythe I J can be expl ai ned byW ang’ s confus i on o r a re b a se d o n in f

e re n c e s n o t g ro u n d e d in th e re c o rd , w h e n W a n g ’s te stim o n yis c o n sid e re d in to tal it p ro v id e s s u f f icie n t su p p o rt f

o r th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatthe I J ’ s deni al of W ang’ s as y l um cl ai m w as su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e . B e c a u se th e sta n d a rd f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l is m or e s tr i ngentthan thatforas y l um , w e al s o concl ude thatW ang’ s appl i cat i on for w i thhol di ng of r emoval w as pr oper l ydeni ed. See Lukw ago v. A s hcr oft , 329 F. 3d 157, 182 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( “The st andar d forw i thhol di ng of r emoval i s hi gherthan, al bei ts i m i l ar t o , th e s t a n d a r d f

o ra s y l u m. . . . I f

[ a p e t i t i o n e r ] i s u n a b l e t o s a t i s f yth e s t a n d a r d f

o ra s y l u m, h e n e c e s s a ri ly f

a ils to m e e t th e s ta n d a rd f o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l u n d e r [ th e IN A ].” ). V I. W e have cons i der ed al l of the ar gum ent s r ai s ed bythe part i es and conc l ude thatno fur therdi s cus s i on i s nece s s ary . T he pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.