NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a0634n.06 No. 11-3786 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T CHONG CHOW, Petitioner,

v. ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM A F I

NAL ORDER OF TH E BO ARD OF I MMI GRATI ON APPEAL S

Be fore : MARTI

N and CL AY, Circuit J udg es; HOOD , District J udg e. *

PER C UR I AM. Chong Chow, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for revie w of an order by the Boa rd of I mmigration Appea ls (B I A) aff irming the decision of an immigra tion judge (I J ) who denied his application for asy l u m , withholding of remova l, and reque st for re lief under

the Convention Ag ainst Torture ( CAT). Chow illega lly enter ed the United States in 1993 and filed an asylum a pplication under the

n am e of J ian Z hou. Chow initially claimed that he had been confine d and tortured by Chin es e authorities beca

use of his public o p p o s i tion to China’s family planning policy

. When he failed to appea r for his immigra tion hear ing, the I J order ed Chow deporte d in absentia. There afte r, Chow was g rante d leave t o re o p en his deporta tion proce eding s. I n 2008, he withdrew his 1993 asy lum

The Honora

ble J oseph M

. Ho od, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation.No. 11-3786 - 2 - application and, in 2009, submitt ed a new application seeking asylum, withholding of remova l, and protec tion under CAT. I n his second asy lum application, Chow disavowed every t h i n g submitt ed in the first application. He claimed to have been perse cuted by authorities of the Chinese g overnme nt beca use h e had participa ted in the Tiananme n Student Movement of 1989 and the demonstratio n i n Tiananme n Square. Chow also claimed that he would “be sterilized pur suant to China’ s one child per family policy .” In a subsequent amendment to his asylum application, Chow claimed that he also fea red perse cution by the Chinese g overnme nt beca use of his rec ent adoption of the Christian faith. At a h ea ri n g o n t he merits of his application, Chow stated that he soug ht asylum beca use (1) he fea red relig ious perse cution; (2) he fea red perse cution for having violated Chinese family planning policies; and (3 ) h e fea

red political perse cution arising from his participation in the Tiananme n Square pr otest. The I J found that Chow was not cre dible and, even assuming that Chow was cre dible, there

was a lack of corr oboration conce rning Chow’s perse cution claim. The I J also deter mined that Chow “did not demonstrate that the Chinese g overnme nt has a national policy of requiring sterilization of [a] pare nt who returns with a second chil d b o rn outside of China.” The also I J reje cted Chow’s relig ious perse cution claim beca use he failed to offe r corr oborating evidenc e. The BIA upheld the I J ’s dec ision and we g rante d Chow a stay of re moval pending revie w. Chow co n t en ds that both the BI A and the I J err ed in finding him not cre dible and erred in deciding that he failed to establish past perse cution, o r a well-founded fear of future perse cution. The g overnme nt contends that the B I A’s dec ision is supported by substantial evidence and movesNo. 11-3786 - 3 - to strike documents appende d to Chow’s reply brief that wer e not contained in the rec ord befor e the ag ency . Be cause the BI

A “i s sue[d] a separ ate opinion, rathe r than summarily aff irming” the I J ’s opinion, the BIA’s decision is deeme d to be “the final ag enc y d eter mination for purposes of our revie w.” Khalil i v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435 ( 6th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s deter

mination that Chow was not elig ible for asylum “must be upheld if supported by rea sonable, substantial, and probative evidenc e on the rec ord consid er ed as a whole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U. S

. 4 7 8 , 481 (1992) (citation and internal quotation omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(3) (A). Under this defe rential standard, we may not reve rse the BIA’s deter mination simply beca

use we would have decide d the matter differ ently

. See Khalil i , 557 F.3d at 435. Under the substantial e vidence standard, a fac tual deter

mination will not be re verse d unless the evidenc e “not only supports a contrary conclusion, but indeed compe ls it.” Klawi tter v. INS , 970 F.2d 149, 152 (6th Cir. 1992). Substantial evidenc e supports the BIA’s finding that Chow did not corr oborate his claim of perse cution. Chow conce des that corr oborative evidenc e was rea sonably available

. “[W ]here it is

rea sonable to expect corr oborating evidenc e for cer tain alleg ed facts p er taining to the s pecif ics of

an applicant’ s claim, such evidenc e should be provided.” Dorosh v. Ashcroft , 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004) (interna l quotation marks omittt ed). Chow claimed past perse cuti o n and fea red future perse cution based on his alleg ed participation in the Ti anan m en Square student protests of 1989. Chow, howeve r, supplied no evidenc e of his participation. Even the statements provided by Chow’sNo. 11-3786 - 4 - mother and older sister made n o m en t i o n o f Chow’s mistreatment in China stemming from his participa tion in the Tiananmen Square protests. The evidenc e in the rec ord does not compel us to conclude that Chow has a well-founde d fea r of future perse cution. Chow contends that he rea sonably fea rs forc ed sterilization or other sanctions based on the birth of his two children in the United States. The BI A relied on the 2007 China Profile that indicates that United S tates offic i als are unawa re of any such pol icy

. Chow submitt ed letters perta ining to the enfor ceme nt of China’s family planning policy ag ainst women of children born in China, but those letters did not furnish proof that Chinese men with multipl e fore ign- born children

are subject to sterilization. See Che n v. Holder , 397 F. App’ x 111, 116 n.3 (6th Cir. 2010). The evidenc e in the rec ord does not compel the court to conclude that Chow has a wellfounded fea

r of perse cution based on his relig ion. Chow is a newly -conve rted C h ri s t i an who prov i d es virtually no specific basis for his fea r of future relig ious perse cution. Rather, Chow articula ted his fea

r of future perse cution by saying, “as a Christian if I would return to China I would definitely participa te in Christian activities and prea ching and those things the g overnme nt did not like

. . . .” The I J noted the brevity of Chow’s testimony on the subject, as well as h i s fa i l ure to

corr oborate that he is active in the Christian faith. The BIA ag ree d. S i n ce “[ t ] h e subjective fea r component turns lar g ely

upon the applica

nt’s own testimony

and cr edibility ,” Akhtar v. Gonzale s , 406 F.3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2005), C how has not established that his fea r of relig ious perse cution is subjectively

g enuine. To be elig ible for withholding of remova l, Chow must demonstrate a “cle ar probability ” that he would be subject to perse cution on the basis of rac e, relig ion, nationality , m em b ership in aNo. 11-3786 - 5 - particula r social g roup, or political opinion. Liti v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 631, 640–41 (6th Cir. 2005). This burden of proof is more stringe nt than the well-founde d fea r of perse cution require d to establish elig ibilit y for asy lum. Id

. at 640. Be cause the rec ord supports a deter mination that Chow failed to establish elig ib i l ity for asy lum, it nece ssarily supports a deter mination that he did not satisfy the more string ent standar ds for withholding of re moval and prote ction under CAT. Id . at 641. We g rant the g overnme nt’s motion to strike documents appende d to Chow’s reply brief and deny the petition for re view.