FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 11, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 02 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 88 -3 07 -3 09

RI XING CHEN, a.k .a. Yam am ot o Kayo, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Peti ti on er, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 1, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, PRYOR, an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ri Xin g C he n, a n at iv e an d c it iz enof C hi na , see ks rev ie w of t he Bo ardof

Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al s’s (“ BIA”) ord er aff irming th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) de ni al of a sylum , withh ol di ng of r em ov al , andrel ie f un de r th e Uni te d Nat io ns Co nv en ti on Agai ns t To rtu re an d Othe r Cru el , Inh um anor De gr ad in g Tre atm en t o r Pu ni sh m en t (“ CAT”). The BIA b as edit s d eci si on onCh en ’s fai lure t o s ho w a well -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re p ers ecu ti on as apra ct it io ne r of Fal un Gon g. Ch enarg ue s o n app eal th atth e BIA i m pr op erl y foc us edon th e fac t tha t s he
was no t a l ead er o f Fal unGon g, an d fa il edto co ns id er h er p art ic ul ar ci rcu m st an ces . She po in ts ou t tha t the U.S. Departm en t o f St at e’s Co un try Rep orts for

Ch in a es tabl is h t ha t ev enm ere p ract it io ne rs of F al un Gon g a re subjec te d t o i m

pr is on m en t, ab us e, an d re educ at io n c am ps . Mor eo ve r, sh e st at es th atth e Ch in es e g ov ern m en t’s i ss ua nc e o f a wan te d p os te r an d re wardfor he r cap tu re s ug ge st s t he go ve rn m en t m ay infactreg ardhe r as a Fal un Gon g l ead er. Fo r th es e rea so ns , sh e as se rts th atsh e es tabl is he d awell -fo un de d fe ar o f fu tu re pe rs ecu ti on an d i s el ig ib le forasylu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al . She als o co nt en ds th atsh e is eli gi bl e fo r CAT rel ie f ba se d o n re po rts th atFal un Gon g pr act it io ne rs are t ortu redwhen incu st od y an d i n re educ at io n c am

ps . Upo n a rev ie w of t he en ti re re co rdon ap pe al , andaft er co ns id erat io n, we d en y Ch en ’s pe ti ti on . 2Whe n t he BIA is su es a de ci si on witho utex pr es sl y ad op ti ng th e rea so ni ng of th e IJ , as i s t he cas e h ere, we re vi ew on ly tha t d eci si on . Al Najjar v. Ash cro ft, 2 57 F.3 d 1 26 2, 1 28 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Our s tand ardof r ev ie w requi res th atwe ap pl y a subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce t es t t o d et erm in e if th e BIA’s d eci si on“ is supp orte d b y reas on ab le , subs ta nt ia l, an d p ro ba ti ve ev id en ce o n the reco rdco ns id eredas a who le .” Id
. at12 83 –8 4 (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Und er thi s t es t, “ we vi ew th e reco rdev id en ce i n the li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ag en cy ’s dec is io n a nddra w all
reas on ab le in fere nc es infav or of t ha t d eci si on .” Adef

em i v . Ash cro ft, 3 86 F.3d 10 22 , 10 27 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en ba nc ). W e m ay rev ers e th e BIA’s fac tu al fin di ng s on ly whe n “ th e rec or d c om pe ls a rev ers al ,” an d t he factth atth e rec or d o ffer s s om e supp ort fo r pe ti ti on er’s cas e is no t en ou gh to rev ers e. Id
. Und er the Im

m ig rat io n a ndNati on al it y Act (“ INA”), th e Att orne y Gene ral
orSecr et ary of

Hom el an d S ecu rit y

ha s d is cret io n t o g ran t as y lu m if the ali enm eet s th e d efi ni ti on of “ refu ge e,” as de fin edby 8 U.S.C. § 1 10 1( a)(4 2) (A). INA § 2 08 (b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 15 8( b) (1 )(A). A refu ge e is de fin edas: an y pe rs on who is ou ts id e an y co un try o f su ch pe rs on ’s nat io na li ty o r, in th e cas e of a pe rs on ha vi ng no na ti on al it y , i s ou ts id e an y co un try i n whi ch su c h p e r s on la st habi tu al ly res id ed , an d who is un ab le or un wil li ng to return to , an d is un ab le or u n 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 , th at co u n t ry be cau se of pe rs ecu ti on or a well -fo un de d fear of pe rs ecu ti on on acco un t of race , rel ig io n,

3na ti on al it y , m em be rs hi p in a pa rti cu lar so ci al gr oup, or po li ti cal op in io n

. . . . 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a)( 42 )(A). The asylu m ap pl ic an t ca rri es th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g st atut ory “ refu ge e” s ta tu s, an d t he reb y est ab li sh in g a sylum

eli gi bi li ty. Al Najjar, 25 7 F .3dat 1 28 4. To es tabl is h a sylum

eli gi bi li ty, th e al ie n m

us t, wi th sp eci fic an d c red ib le
ev id en ce, es tabl is h e it he r (1 ) pa stpe rs ecu ti on onacco un t o f a s ta tu to ril y li st ed fact or , or (2 ) a “ well -fo un de d fe ar” t ha t the st atut or il y li st edfact orwil l caus e fu tu re p ers ecu ti on . 8 C.F.R. § 20 8.1 3( b) ; Se pu lv ed a v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 4 01 F.3d 12 26 , 12 30 –3 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Whe n t he re i s n o e vi de nc e o f pa stpe rs ecu ti on , as is th e cas e h ere, an ap pl ic an t es tabl is he s a we ll -fo un de d fe ar o f fu ture pe rs ecu ti on by dem on st rat in g t ha t h is or h er fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on is bo th

“ subjec ti ve ly genui ne ” an d “ ob jecti ve ly reaso nabl e.” Al Najjar, 2 57 F.3dat 1 28 9. Ch enackno wled ge s o urpa stob se rv at io n t ha t “ [i]nv ol ve m en t wi th Fal un Gon g i n C hi naby its el f do es no t” est ab li sh a reas on ab le po ss ib il it y of f utur e pe rs ecu ti on at t he ha nd s o f th e Ch in es e g ov ern m en t o n t he ba si s o f rel ig io us be li ef. Zhe ng v. U.S. Att ’y Gen., 4 51 F.3d12 87 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). To b e su re, as th e St at e Dep art m en t h as po in te d o ut , th e Ch in es e g ov ern m en t co nt in ue s

“ to wage a se ve re ca m

pa ig n” ag ai ns t Fa lu n Go ng . Man y Fal unGon g p ract it io ne rs

4ha ve face d p un is hm en ts th atin cl ud e im pr is on m en t, s ev ere b eat in gs , to rtu re, an d in vo lu nt ary co nf

in em en t t o m en ta l h os pi ta ls , with t he hars he stpu ni sh m en ts res erv edforth e m ov em en t’s “ co re l ead ers .” Howev er, m os t p ract it io ne rs , if pu ni sh ed , are p un is he d a dm in is tra ti ve ly. Adm in is tra ti ve puni sh m en ts , acco rd in g to th e St at e Dep artm en t, m ay in cl ud e se nt en ces to “ RTL” (ree du cat io n t hr ou gh labo r) ca m

ps an d t o “ ‘leg al educ at io n’ cen te rs sp eci fic al ly establ is he d t o ‘rehab il it at e’ prac ti ti on ers who refu se [] to re can t p ub li cl y th ei r be li ef v ol un ta ril y .” The se sen te nc es are g en eral ly foll owe d b y rel eas e fro m

an y de te nt io n. Adm in is tra ti ve pu ni sh m en ts als o c anin cl ud e th e lo ss of e m pl oym en t. W e rec og ni ze tha t, b as edon he r be li efs an d t he Ch in es e g ov ern m en t’s p as t in te res t i n a rres ti ng he r, Ch enface s the po ss ib il it y of a rres t, d et en ti on , andso m e fo rm of p un is hm en t i f returne d t o C hi na . Neithe r do we di sp ut e Ch en ’s con te nt io n th atth ere m ay

be cir cu m st an ces when so -cal le d a dm in is tra ti ve pu ni sh m en ts m ay reac h the hi gh th res ho ldwe ha ve setforwhatco un ts as p ers ecu ti on . See Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1 (d es cri bi ng pe rs ecu ti on as a n “ ex tre m e co nc ep t, requi rin g m or e th ana few i so la te d i nc id en ts of v erb al haras sm en t o r in ti m id at io n, an d t ha t m ere h aras sm en t d oe s n otam ou ntto pe rs ecu ti on ” (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) ); s ee al so Zhen g, 4 51 F.3dat 1 29 0– 91 (cat al og ui ng cas es inwhi ch th is
an d o th er ci rcu it s h av e fai le d t o fi ndpe rs ecu ti on de sp it e ev id en ce o f de te nt io n a nd 5ph y si cal ha rm ). Yet, b as edon a st an da rdof r ev ie w un de r whi chwe m us t “ dr aw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es infav orof” th e BIA’s d eci si on , Adef em i, 3 86 F.3dat 10 27 , we are u nabl e to co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce o ffer edinth is cas e co m pe ls th e co nc lu si on th atCh enha s a we ll -fo un de d fe ar o f tr eat m en t ri si ng to th e le ve l o f pe rs ecu ti on . Fi rs t, g iv enth atCh enwas n ota le ad er o f Fal un Gon g, u nl ik e h er fri en d wh o al le ge dl y was t ortu redto de ath, i t re m ai ns un cl ear wh ethe r th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d ha ve subjec te d C he n t o p ers ecu ti on if i t h adarre st edhe r in th e sp rin g o f 20 07
. Seco nd , we lac k s pe ci fic an d c red ib le ev id en ce tha t, n earl y fiv e y ears aft er the in ci de nttri gg eri ng he r fl ig htfro m Ch in a, Ch enwou ldface tre atm en t i n C hi na ris in g t o t he “ ex tre m e” l ev el of p ers ecu ti on , cf. Sep ul ve da , 40 1 F .3dat 1 23 1– 32 (d et erm in in g t ha t b ecau se “ th e ev id en ce [d id ] no t i nd ic at e [Se pu lv ed a’s] not or ie ty as anact iv is t wo ul d o ut la sthe r fo ur -y ear abs en ce fr om Co lu m bi a,” the ev id en ce fai le d t o “ co m

pe l the co nc lu si onSep ul ve daha d awell -fo un de d fe ar tha t the ELN ret ai n[ ed ] anin cl in at io n t o s in gl e h er o utforpe rs ecu ti on ”), as op po se d t o t he ki nd of adm in is tra ti ve san ct io n t ha t ap pe ars to be co m m on forth os e who are n otFal un Gon g l ead ers . For t he se reas on s, we ar e u nabl e to say tha t Ch enha s m etth e h eav y ev id en ti ary bu rd enrequi redbe fo re we can re ve rs e th e BIA’s d eci si on . Butsee Zho u v . Gon zal es , 43 7 F .3d86 0 (9 th Cir . 20 06 ) (h ol di ng th atev id en ce i nc lu di ng 6arre stof a li en ’s frie ndaft er re cei vi ng Fal un Gon g arti cl es , let te rs st at in g t ha t

po li ce re pe at ed ly trie d t o a rres t al ie n, co pi es of s earc h a ndarre stwarran ts , to ge th er with S ta te Depa rtment C ou nt ry Rep orts , dem on strat edanin di vi du al iz edris k t o al ie n s uf fic ie ntto co m

pe l the co nc lu si on of a li en ’s well -fo un de d fe ar o f pe rs ecu ti on if re tu rn edto Ch in a). W e th eref or e d en y Ch en ’s pet it io n fo r as y lu m . Bec au se we ho ldth atCh enha s n otsat is fie d t he les s s tri ng en t s ta nd ardfor
as y lu m , we als o d en y

he r pe ti ti on forrev ie w of h er cl ai m s fo r withh ol di ng of
rem ov al un de r th e INA an d fo r CAT rel ie f. See Zh en g, 4 51 F.3dat 1 29 2 (au to m at ic al ly den y in g c la im s fo r wit hh ol di ng of r em ov al an d C AT reli ef wh ere pe ti ti on er fa il s t o e st ab li sh cla im of a sylum

onm eri ts ); F or gu e v . U.S. Att’y Gen., 40 1 F .3d12 82 , 12 88 n.4 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (s am e). PETI TI ON DENI ED.

7