FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APR 5 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15217 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ A ge nc y N o. A 79- 453- 393 Y A N Y A N W A N G , P e titio n e r , v ersu s U .S . A T T O RN E Y G E N E R A L , R e s p o n d e n t.

________________________ P e t i t i on f orR e vi e w of

aD e c i s i on of

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

_________________________ ( A p r i l5, 2006) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Wang also requests that this court review her motion to reopen. The record does not 1 reve al, however, that Wanghas filed such a motion. 2 Y a n Y a n W a ng, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , pe t i t i ons th is c o u r t f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e f in a l o r d e ro f

th e B o a r d o f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ( “ B I A ” ) a f

f i rm i ng the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) or de rde ny i ng he ra s y l um a nd w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l u n d e rth e I m m ig r a tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “I N A ” ) , 8 U . S . C . §§ 1158, 1231, a nd the U ni t e d N a t i ons C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT or tur e a nd O th e rC ru e l, I n h u m a n o rD e g r a d in g T r e a tm e n t o rP u n is h m e n t ( “C A T ” ) , 8 C .F .R . § 208. 16( c ) . O n appe a l , W a ng a r gue s tha tthe I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ngs a nd 1 deni al of her a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and C A T cl ai m s w er e notsupp ort ed by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . F orthe r e a s ons tha tf ol l ow , w e de ny he rpe t i t i on. I . B a c kgr ound W a ng a rr i ve d i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thoutva l i d e ntry doc um e nt s , a nd the I m m ig r a tio n a n dN a tu r a liz a tio n S e rv ic e ( “I N S ” ) c h a r g e d h e rw ith r e m o v ab ility un der I N A § 2 12 (a )( 7)(A )( i )( I) , 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(a) (7)( A )( i )( I) . D uri ng her i ni t i al i nt e rvi e w upon a rr i va l i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , W a ng s t a t e d tha ts he c a m e t o the U ni t ed S t at es for s choo l and b ec ause the C hi nese go vernm entw ou l d n otperm i ther t o m arryher boyfr i end b ec ause of her a ge. O ff i ci al s a gai n i nt ervi ew ed W ang at the pr oc e s s i ng c e nt e r , a tw hi c h poi nta n i m m i gr a t i on of f i c e rf ound tha tW a ng ha d a cr edi bl e f

ea r of per se cut i on base d o n h eri nabi l i ty t o m arryher boyfr i end and her3

f e a rtha ts he w oul d be a rr e s t e d a nd f or c e d t o ha ve a n abor t i on i n the e ve nts he beca m e pre gn ant . S he further s t at ed thati n Jun e 200 2, she had re ce i ved n ot i ce f r om the gove rnm e nttha ts he m us tvi s i tthe f a m i l y pl a nni ng c l i ni c f

orpl a c e m e ntof a n i ntr a ut e r i ne de vi c e ( “ I U D ” ) f orc ontr a c e pt i on. W ang app l i ed for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al and C A T re l i ef . In her appl i c a t i on, s he i ndi c a t e d tha ts he ha d be e n pe r s e c ut e d be c a us e s he w a s not al l ow ed t o m arryun t i l she r ea ched the l egal age, she had been force d t o u nd er go an abort i on , and the l ocal fa m i l y pl anni ng cl i ni c pl anned t o p l ac e a n IU D i n h er . A ther hear i ng before the IJ, W ang con ce ded rem ov abi l i ty a nd t es t i fi ed as fol l ow s: S he w as tw enty- tw o yea rs ol d and si ng l e, and she had l i ved w i th h er p a r e n ts b e f

o r e le a v in g C h in a . S h e d id n o t w o rk b e c au s e s h e c o u ld n o t f in d ajo b . W an g h ad a b o yfri en d i n C h i n a, b u tth ey h ad n o tb een p erm i tt ed t o m arry b ecau se they w er e und er age. W hen she w entfor herrout i ne exam i nat i on atthe l ocal fa m i l y pl anni ng cl i ni c i n M ar ch 20 02 , she l ea rned she w as pregnant . A tthatt i m e, s he w a s f or c e d t o unde r go a n abor t i on. F ourpe opl e t i e d he rha nds a nd f e e ta nd pe r f orm e d the abor t i on w i thouta dm i ni s t e r i ng a ne s the s i a . W a ng c r i e d a nd s c r e a m e d d u r in g th e p r o c e d u r e . F o llo w in g th e p r o c e d u r e , s h e w a s o r d e r e d to r e tu rn in o n e w e e k f

o rp la c e m e n t o f

a n I U D . W h e n s h e f

a ile d to r e tu rn , o f

f ic ia ls w arned h erpare nt s thatshe m ustvi si tthe cl i ni c a nd ac ce ptthe IU D , so W ang fl ed4

C hi na . S he doe s notknow w ha tw oul d happe n t o he ri f s he r e turne d t o C hi na , but s he f e a r s s he w oul d be j a i l e d. W an g ad m i tt ed th atsh e d i d n o tm en t i o n th e ab o rt i o n w h en sh e w as fi rst i nt ervi ew ed up on arri vi ng i n the U ni t ed S t at es , bu tshe e xp l ai ned thatshe had been verynervou s a nd af

ra i d b ec ause the i nt ervi ew erw as a m an. W ang t ol d the IJthat s he w a s l i vi ng w i th ac ous i n, buts he c oul d notr e m e m be rthe c ous i n’ s na m e or gend er . N or coul d she re ca l l the nam e of herem pl oyer . T he IJdeni ed re l i ef

, no t i ng thatal tho ug h a forc ed abort i on w ou l d q ual i fyan al i en as a r ef

ug ee , W ang l ac ked credi bi l i ty i n l i gh tof the i ncon si st enci es i n h er t e s t i m ony . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the I J not e d the di f f e r e nc e s i n the s t a t e m e nt s W a ng ga ve a t th e a irp o r t, th e p r o c e s s in g c e n te ra n d th e h e a r in g a s w e ll a s W a n g ’s in ab ility to r e c a l l the na m e s of

he rc ous i n a nd e m pl oy e r . T he I J a l s o not e d tha ta l though W a ng i ni t i al l y s t at ed thatshe had l i ved w i th h erpare nt s bef ore l ea vi ng C hi na, she l at er cl ai m ed t o h ave r es i ded w i th h erbo yf ri end i n C hi na. F i nal l y, the IJno t ed that W ang h ad prov i ded con fl i ct i ng i nform at i on re gardi ng w hen and ho w she had r e c e i v e d n o t i c e t o r e p o r tf o ri n s e r t i o n o f

a n I UD . Wa n g ap p e a l e d t o th e B I A, a r g u in g th a t s h e w a s d e n ie d af u ll a n d f a irh e a r in g , th a t th e I J e rr e d in h is c r e di bi l i ty f

i ndi ngs , a nd tha the rt e s t i m ony e s t abl i s he d e l i gi bi l i ty f orr e l i e f . T he B I A di s m i s s e d the appe a l , a dopt i ng a nd a f f i rm i ng the I J ’ s f

i ndi ngs , butde c l i ni ng5

t o a ddr e s s W a ng’ s i nabi l i ty t o r e c a l l the na m e s of he rc ous i n a nd e m pl oy e r . T he B I A f ur the rc onc l ude d tha tW a ng ha d r e c e i ve d af ul l a nd f a i rhe a r i ng. I I . D i s c us s i on W a ng a r gue s tha tthe I J e rr e d i n de ny i ng he ra s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l be c a us e s he t e s t i f i e d hone s t l y a nd f

e a r s s he w i l l be puni s he d i f s he r e turns to C h in a . W e “r e v ie w o n ly th e [ B I A ]’s d e c is io n , e x c e p t to th e e x te n t th a t it e x p r e s s ly adop t s the IJ ’ s opi ni on . ” H uang v. U . S . A tt ’ y G en. , 42 9 F . 3d 10 02 , 10 08 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). W e r ev iew th e I J’s leg al d eter m in atio n s d e n o v o , D -M u h u m ed v . U .S . A tt ’y G e n. , 388 F . 3d 814, 817 ( 11th C i r . 2004) , a nd hi s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs , i nc l udi ng d e t e rmi n a t i o n s o f

c r e d i b i l i ty , u n d e rth e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e s t . Fo r g u e v . U . S. A tt ’ y G en. , 40 1 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 86 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). U nd erthe subst ant i al evi dence te s t, w e w ill “a f

f irm th e I J ’s d e c is io n if

it is s u p p o r te d b y r e a s o n ab le , s u b s ta n tia l, a nd pr oba t i ve e vi de nc e on the r e c or d c ons i de r e d a s aw hol e . ” I d. ( quot a t i on o m itte d ) . “T o r e v e r s e th e I J ’s f a c t f in d in g s , w e m u s t f

in d th a t th e r e c o r d n o t o n ly s uppor t s r e ve r s a l , butc om pe l s i t . ” M e ndoz av. U . S . A tt ’ y G e n. , 327 F . 3d 1283, 12 87 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T hatevi dence i n the re cord m aysupp orta c on tra ry c onc l us i on i s note nough t o j us t i f y r e ve r s a l . A de f

e m i v. A s hc r of

t , 386 F . 3d 1022, 10 27 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( en banc), ce rt . deni ed, 12 5 S . C t . 22 45 (200 5). W e gi ve pro6

s e litig a n ts m o r e f

r e e d o m d u r in g le g a l p r o c e e d in g s th a n w e g e n e r a lly g iv e litig a n ts w i th cou nsel . S ee L ori sm e v. IN S , 12 9 F . 3d 14 41 , 14 44 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 19 97 ).

“ If th e ap p l i can tp ro d u ces n o ev i d en ce o th er th an h i s t est i m o n y, an ad v erse c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on i s a l one s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tthe de ni a l of a n a s y l um ap p lic a tio n .” F o r g u e , 4 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 7 ( c itin g D - M u h u m e d , 3 8 8 F .3 d a t 8 1 9 ) . H e r e , th e I J d e te rm in e d th a t W a n g ’s te s tim o n y w a s n o t c r e d ib le d u e to i nc ons i s t e nc i e s be tw e e n he rs t a t e m e nt s a tthe i nt e rvi e w s , i n he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on an d atth e h eari n g . T h i s fi n d i n g i s su p p o rt ed b y su b st an t i al ev i d en ce b ecau se th ese i nc ons i s t e nc i e s go t o the he a r tof W a ng’ s c l a i m , the a l l e ge d ba s i s of he rf e a rof pers ec ut i on . S peci fi ca l l y, up on arri vi ng i n the U ni t ed S t at es , W ang i nform ed i m m i grat i on offi ci al s thatshe had com e her e t o att end schoo l and b ec ause she w as notpe rm i tt e d t o m a rry he rboy f r i e nd. A tthe pr oc e s s i ng c e nt e r , s he s t a t e d tha ts he l ef tC hi na because she w as no tperm i tt ed t o m arryand b ec ause she f ea re d that g o v e rn m e n t o f

f ic ia ls w o u ld im p la n t a n I U D o rf o r c e h e rto u n d e r g o a n ab o r tio n if she bec am e pre gn ant . S he di d n otm ent i on thatshe had been force d t o u nd er go an abor t i on unt i l s he s ubm i tt e d he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on a nd appe a r e d a the rhe a r i ng. W ang d i d n otsubm i tany m edi ca l do cum ent s or a ff i davi t s t o corrobo ra t e her c l a i m s . I n f

a c t , the onl y c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e s he s ubm i tt e d w a s ac opy of the 2003 C ountry R e por tf

orC hi na , w hi c h c onf

i rm s tha tC hi naus e s s tr i c tbi r th c ontr ol7

po l i ci es such as forc i ng w om en t o acc eptIU D pl ac em ent , re fusi ng t o p erm i tun w ed w om e n t o ha ve c hi l dr e n, a nd f or c i ng w om e n t o unde r go abor t i ons i n the e ve ntof a n unpl a nne d pr e gna nc y . A l though thi s e vi de nc e s uppor t s the pos s i bi l i ty of the pers ec ut i on W ang al l eges , i ti s notspec i fi c t o W ang and do es no tcorr ob orat e her c l a i m tha ts he w a s f

or c e d t o unde r go a n abor t i on. G i ven the abov e- m ent i on ed i ncon si st enci es and W ang’ s f ai l ure t o p rodu ce ev id en ce co rr o b o ra ti n g h erclaim s, th e r ec o rd d o es n o t co m p el re v er sa l o f th e I J’s advers e c re di bi l i ty det erm i nat i on . S ee F orgu e, 40 1 F . 3d at12 87 . T hu s s ub st ant i al evi dence s up po rt s the IJ ’ s det erm i nat i on thatW ang fai l ed t o est abl i sh her el i gi bi l i ty f

or as yl um , and, because s he has f ai l ed t o d o so, she l i kew i se has f ai l ed t o est abl i sh el i gi bi l i ty f

or w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al and C A T re l i ef . S ee A l N ajj ar , 2 5 7 F . 3 d a t1 2 9 2 - 9 3 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n y h e rp e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. P E T I T I ON DE NI E D.