Pursuant to Fede ral Rule of A ppellate Proc edure 43(c) (2), c urre nt Attorney Gene ral 1 Eric H. H older Jr. is automatically substitut ed for

former Attorney Gene ral Micha el B . Mukasey as the re spondent in this case. 07
- 36 30
- ag Shi Ji e G e v . H ol der U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT

__________ August Term, 2008 Argued: May

27, 2009 Dec ided: Dec ember 2, 2009
Docke t No. 07-3630-a g

__________

________________________________________________________ SHIJ I E GE, Petitioner,

-v- E R IC H
. H O LD E R

J R
. , A T T O R

N E Y G E N E RA L, 1 Re sp on de nt.

________________________________________________________ L EV AL , PO OL ER, and

B .D . PA RK ER, Cir c uit

Judg e s. The pe titioner seeks re view of the J uly 25, 2007 decision of the B oard of I mmigration Ap pe a ls, wh ic h a ff

ir me d a n Immi g ratio n Jud g e ’s No ve mbe r 1 0, 20 05 or de r d e nyinghis applications for

asylum, for withholding of remova l, and for r elief unde r the United N ations Convention Ag ainst Torture a nd Other I

nhumane or

Deg radingTreatment or Punishment. Be cause we f

ind that the BIA committed err ors both as to the timeliness of the petitioner’ s2

application for

asylum and in consideringwhether the petitioner would likely fac e per secution should he be re turned to his native countr y , we GRAN T the petition, VACATE the a g ency ’s decision deny

ing r elief, a

nd REMAND to the ag ency for f urther pr ocee dings.

__________ D A V I D K
. S. K I M ( M a tt h e w L
. G u a d a g n o , K e r

r y W. Br et z , an d

J u l es E
. C o v en , o nth e b ri ef ), BR E T Z & COVEN, L L P, New Yor

k, NY, for

Petitioner. ANNETE M. WI ETECHA, Tria l Attorney , Offic e of I mmigration L itigation (A nh-Thu P. Mai, Senior L itigation Counsel, and J eff

rey S. Bucholtz, Acting Asst. Attorney Gene ral, on the br ief), U .S. Depar tment of J ustice, Was hin g ton , D .C. , f

or Re sp on de nt.
POOL ER, Circuit J udg e: Shi J ie Ge ha s timely

petitioned this Court, pursuant to S ection 242 of the I mmigration and Nationality

Act (“ I NA”) , as ame nded 8 U.S.C. § 1252, for re view of the J uly 25, 2007 decision of the B oard of

I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) , which af firmed a n I mmigration J udg e’s (“the I J ”) N ovember

10, 2005 order

denying G e’s a

pplications for a sylum, for withholding of
remova l, and for r elief unde r the United N ations Convention Aga inst Torture and O ther Inhumane or

Deg radingTreatment or Punishment (“CAT”). 1465 U .N.T.S. 85. We conclude th aterro rs co m m i t t edb y

th e B I A r equ i re re m an d

o f G e’ s ap p l i ca t i o n s fo r f urt h er p ro ce ed i n gs consistent with this opi nion.

F AC TS Ac c or din g to h is F or

m I -5 89 Ap pli c a tio n f

or As ylum and Withho ldi ngof

Re mov a l,3

which wa s filed on Marc h 10, 2004, Shi J ie Ge w as born in Tianjin, China, on September 11, 1961. Ge, who r emains a Chinese citizen, entere d the United States on a six-month vi sa on May 1, 2000, and has ne ver r eturne d to China. His wife, whom he ma rried in 1989, a

nd his son, who was born in 1990, r emain in China. Ge e ventually

came to reside in Que ens, Ne w York a nd, on J uly

28, 2004, he wa s serve d there with a Notice to Appe ar, which cha rg ed him with being a re movable alien unde r Section 237(a) (1)( B) of the I

NA, in that he ha d rema ined in the United States beyond the expiration of his vis a . 8 U. S.C. § 2 37 (a )( 1) (B ). I n a Se pte mbe r 3 , 2 00 4 h e ari ngbe fo re the I J, Ge a dmi tte d to the truth of this alleg ation. In his asylum application, Ge avers that he left China bec ause of officia l retaliation ag ainst him after he complained of corr upt manag ement pra ctices at the elec tronics firm for which he w orked a s a salesma n. But Ge ’s claim for

asylum does not arise fr om these eve nts. Rather, Ge ’s claim ar ises from his membership in the China De mocra cy Party (“CDP”) , which, as attested to by

the par ty ’s cha irman, Ge joined, on J une 15, 2001, af ter he enter ed the United States. On this appeal, Ge decla res that he joined the CDP “bec ause he was a ng ry with the
corr upt Chinese g overnme nt and share d the principles the pa rty stands for – f

ree dom, human rig hts and justice.” The rec ord conta ins photogra phs of Ge pa

rticipating in CDP demonstrations at the Chinese c onsulate in NewYork City , as we ll as articles written by Ge whic h wer e posted on the org anization’s website. We do not perc eive that the G overnme nt questions the g e nu ine ne ss o f G e ’s inv olv e me nt w iththe CD P. Ge a sserts that his work on beha lf of the CDP includes the c landestine re cruitment, by
me ans of te le ph on e , o f p art

y me mbe rs wi thi n Ch ina

its e lf . In f a c t, G e c on te nd s th a t hi s4

membership in the CDP was re veale d to gove rnment authorities in China af ter a n individual he
rec ruited wa s arr ested. Af ter this individual reported G e’s membe rship, Ge a sserts that, on Oc t o b er 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 , h i s wi fe wa s v i s i t edb y C h i n es e p o l i ce o ff

i ci al s , wh o urge d

h er t o en co ura ge Ge to re turn to China. I n a letter to the I J , dated July

28, 2004, Ge’ s wife a cknowledg es that she fi rs tl ea rn edo f G e’ s C DP m em b er s h i p b ec au s e o f t h e a rr es to f “ m y hu s b an d ’s fr i en d , ” a l th o u gh the le tte r d id n ot m e nti on any vis it b y g ov e rnme nt o ff

ic ia ls f oll ow ingthe re c ru it’ s a

rr e st. In h is asylum application, Ge posits his fear of per secution should he be r eturne d to China: As Iexposed my

[C DP] membership public [sic] , my pare nts and my wife ha ve bee n fre quently

hara ssed and pe rsec uted by Chi n[e se ] Comm

un ist Part y a uth or ity . M y

wi fe and my c hil d dare d not stay

in our own home a

nd they kept moving f

rom place to place so a s to avoid the hara ssment from Chinese police. Natur a lly Iwi ll f a c e Chi n[e se ] Comm

un ist Part y a uth or ity perse cution if Ireturn to China now, so I apply to the United States g overnme nt for asy

lum. The CDP’s cha irman, in testimony befor e the I J on Ge’ s behalf, c laims that CDP “members whose membe r[ships] wer e re veale d in China were all arr ested. Rig ht now there are approximately

50 [C DP] members still in jail i n China.” In her or al dec ision delivered on Nove mber 10, 2005, the I J denied a ll of Ge’s applications for

relief . First, the I J found that Ge ’s application for asylum was untimely filed under the applicable deadline of one y ear from entr y into the United States beca use Ge did not file his application until almost four y ear s after his arriva l in this country . Fur ther, the I J reje cted Ge ’s argume nt t

hat he wa s su

bje c t to an e xce pti on

to t he on e -ye ar d e a dli ne ba se d u po n h is c la im that hi s CD P me mbe rs hip on ly be c ame kn ow n to Chi ne se a uth or iti e s in

20 03 . T he I J found

that, beyond Ge’ s own testimony , “the Court has no e vidence to establish that his membership in the5

CDP has ever

been disc overe d by

the g overnme nt of China.” Th e I J als o h e ld t

hat, e ve n if

Ge ’s a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum ha d b e e n ti me ly

fi le d, his c la im for a sylum based upon the possibility of per secution should he be r eturne d to China would fail. Spe c if ic a lly , th e I J hel d th a t a lth ou g h “ [t]he ba c kg ro un d mate ri a l [su bmi tte d b y

Ge ] doe s in dic a te that dissidents from China are arr ested a nd jailed” upon their

return, “ the Court finds that the responde nt has not offe red suf ficient e vidence to establish that the responde nt’s activities have become known to the g overnme nt of China.” A f t e r d e n yi n g G e ’ s a

p p l i c a t i o nf

o r a s yl u m , th e IJ proce eded to de ny

his applications for withholding of re moval, and for relief under CAT. Ge f iled a timely

appea l to the BIA. In a Jul y 25, 2007 decision, the B I A denied the appea l. I n re Shi J ie Ge, N o. 898-273-363 ( B.I .A. J uly 25, 2007). The B I A first consider ed the timeliness of Ge’s a sylum application:

Wit h reg ard to the timeliness of the r espondent’s a pp lic a tio n f

or a sylum , w e se e no re a so n to dis tur b th e [I J’s] finding that it was not filed within [ one] y ear of the re spondent’s arr ival and did not fall within any exceptions to the filing dea dline. Specifica lly , the re spondent enter ed the United States in May 2000, but did not file his asy lum application until March 2004, more than [thr e e ] y e ars a ft e r h e arr ive d. Th e re sp on de nt c on te nd s th a t hi s c ir c ums tanc e s c ha

ng e d w he n h e joi ne d th e CD P. E ve n if thi s membership did constitute cha ng ed cir cumstance s, the responde nt still waited ne arly

[t hree ] y ear s after

he joined the CDP befor e filing his asy

lum application, which does not c onstitut e filing an application within a re asonable time after a cha ng e of circ umstances. The B I A also upheld the de nial of re lief ar ising fr om Ge’s c laim that he fa ced pe rsec ution should he be re turned to China on the mer its. S pecif ically , the B I A re

jected G e’s r eliance upon our dec ision in Tun v. I

NS, 445 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2006): I n T un , th e re wa s e vid e nc e that th e B ur me se g ov e rnme nt c on du c ts6 extensive intelli g ence -g ather ing a nd surveillance on g roups of B ur me se e xpa tr iate s w ho are po lit ic a lly a c tiv e a g a ins t th e B ur

me se g ov e rnme nt i n th e Un ite d St a te s. I d. a t 56 9- 70 . In c on tr a st, wh ile the 2006 United States De partment of [State] C ountry Report on China (of whic h we take judicial notice) pr ovides that CDP activists sometimes are ta rg eted f or ar rest or a rbitrar y detention, the re is n o in dic a tio n th a t Ch ina tr a c ks e xpa tr iate po lit ic a l a c tiv ist s (Report at 4-5, 7). Thus, we do not find that Tun . . . supports the responde nt’s claim. We do not find that it is m ore likely than not that the re spondent’s life or fre edom will be threatened on a ccount of his political activities in the United States. The instant appe al followed.

AN AL YSI S The pa rties disag ree as to the scope of re view we should employ in consideringwhether the ag ency

proper ly denied Ge ’s claims for

relief . Citi ng Yan Chen v. G onzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), Ge posits that thi s is a case wher e the B I A both adopted a nd supplemented the I J ’s dec ision and that, acc ording ly , we should consider the I J ’s dec ision, as supplemented by the B I A. We ag ree with the Gover nment, howeve r, that the B I A conduc ted its own analy sis of Ge’ s claims and that the B I A did not expressly adopt the I J ’s dec ision. Ac c or din g ly , w e wi ll revie w the dec ision of the BIA alone. See Mu XiangL in v. U.S. Dep’t of Justi ce, 432 F .3d 156, 159 (2d Cir. 2005). There can be no disag ree ment that we r eview the ag ency ’s leg al conc lusions de novo, see Yi L ong Yangv. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 133, 141 ( 2d Cir. 2007), and its fac tual finding s, including adver se cr edibility

deter minations, under the substantial evidenc e standa rd. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 4)(B ); see a lso Shu W en Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 379 ( 2d Cir. 2007). In order to be consider ed a r efug ee a nd there fore elig ible for a sylum, the I NA provide s7

th a tG e mu s ts h o wth a th e h a s s u f f e r e d p a s tp e r s e c u t i o no na c c o un to f “ r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i ty, membership in a pa

rticular soc ial g roup, or political opinion,” or that he has a “we ll-founded f

ear of per secution” on suc h g rounds should he be or dere d to return to his native c ountry . 8 U.S.C. § 11 01 (a )( 42 ). A w e ll- fo un de d f e ar i s “ a su bje c tiv e fe ar t

hat is ob je c tiv e ly re a so na ble . Afe ar i s objectively

rea sonable e ven if ther e is only a slig ht, though disce rnible, cha nce of perse cution.” Tambadou v. G onzales, 446 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations and inter nal quotation marks omitted). A. The Time liness of

Ge ’s Application f

or Asylum . The I NA provide s that “[a]ny

alien who is phy sically

prese nt in the United States or who
arr ives in the United States . . . may apply for a sylum” so long a s “the a lien demonstrates by clea r
and c onvin c inge vid e nc e that th e [as ylum ] ap pli c a tio n h a s b e e n f ile d w ith in 1 y e ar a ft e r t

he date of the a lien’s ar

rival in the United States.” 8 U .S.C. §§ 1158(a)(1) , 1158(a) (2)( B) . There is no qu e sti on that G e ’s a

pp lic a tio n, wh ic h is date d F e br ua ry 15 , 2 00 4, is unti me ly

un de r t his statut e beca use the a pplication itself indicates that Ge enter ed the United States on Ma y 1, 2000. Ge argues, howe ver, that his application was timely filed in light of e vents relating to his CDP membership, which be g an af ter he arr ived in the United States. Ac cording ly , Ge r elies upon 8 U. S.C. se c tio n 1 15 18 (a )( 2) (D ), wh ic h p ro vid e s f or an e xce pti on

to t he on e -ye ar t ime lin e ss deadline be cause of “c hang ed cir cumstance s which mater ially aff ect the a pplicant’s elig ibilit y

for asylum . . . .” Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. section 208.4(a) (4)( i)(B ), “c hang ed cir cumstance s” include “ac tiviti es the a

pplicant bec omes involved in outside the country of fe are d perse cution that place the applica

nt at risk.” As a lr e a dy

no te d, the B I A f

ound that G e c ou ld n ot a

va il h ims e lf

of the e xce pti on

be c a us e8

“ [e]v e n if [his CD P] me mbe rs hip did c on sti tut e c ha

ng e d c ir c ums tanc e s, [Ge ] stil l w a ite d n e arl y three y ear s after

he joined the CDP befor e filing his asylum application, which does not constitute filing a

n application within a re asonable time after a cha ng e of c ircumstance s.” Fur ther, a s the Gover

nment corr ectly

reminds us, the I

NA mandates that, for the most part, no court shall have jurisdiction to review the a g ency ’s finding that an asy lum application was untimely . See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) (3). We do, however , reta in jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law. Se e 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (a )( 2) (D ). An d, a lth ou g h th e Go ve rnme nt c on te nd s th a t G e is m e re ly quibbling about f

actua l findings, we find that he ha s raised a valid question of law c oncer ning the BIA’s application of the “c hang ed cir cumstance s exception” to the one-year filing de adline. Ag ain, the B I A looked to the date of Ge ’s joining the CDP as the only “cha ng ed circ umstance” which mig ht allow him to avail himself of the exception. We ag ree with Ge that this constitut es leg al er

ror be cause it is a misapplication of the plain terms of the r egulation. See Perriello v. Na

politano, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL2749779 at *2 (2d Cir. Sept. 1, 2009) (statingthat
a lth ou g h f

e de ra l c ourt

ow e s d e fe re nc e to B I A’ s in te rp re tatio n o f i ts o wn re g ulatio ns , interpre tation that is plainly err oneous is not controlling)
. Specifica lly , Ge c ontends that while he joined the CDP in 2001, at the direction of the party leade rship he “did not eng ag e in any political activities publicly until approx imately

Marc h of 2003.” F urther, G e states that “ he discove red f or the fir st tim e that his ac tiviti es with CDP
we re re ve a le d to the Chi ne se g ov e rnme nt i n O c tob e r 2 00 3 w he n h e le arn e d thro ug h h is f amil y that a fe llo w C DP m e mbe r h e re c ru ite d w a s a rr e ste d b y the Chi ne se a

uth or iti e s. ” Ge argue s th a t 8 C.F.R. section 208.4(a )(4) (i)(B ) “c lear ly provides that ‘a ctivities the applicant be comes9

involved in outside the country of fe are d perse cution that place the applica nt at risk,’ not mere membership in a political par ty , provide[] an exception to the one- y ear deadline.” Thus, Ge argues that, by

focusingexclusively

on the date of

his enrollment as a me mber of the CDP, the BIA ig nored the plain terms of the r egulation, which def ine “c hang ed cir cumstance s” fa r more b r o a d l y. We ag ree . Ge ha s demonstrated that the BIA committed leg al er ror by eff ectively holding that the only

activity cog nizable under the r egulation was the a ct of his enr ollment in the CDP , an act whic h Ge c ontends was c ommitt ed cla ndestinely . By

taking no notice of G e’s late r ac tiviti es
a s a me mbe r o f t

he CD P, a c ts whic h G e c on te nd s amou nte d to a pu bli c de c laratio n o f h is
me mbe rs hip in a

n o rg anizatio n b ann e d b y the Chi ne se g ov e rnme nt, the B I A i g no re d th e pla in terms of the r egulation and improperly made pa rty membership alone the trig g er date for G e’s invocation of the c hang ed cir cumstance s exception. The re g ulation entitles Ge to consider ation of his contention that it was eve nts taking pla ce a fter he beca me a CDP member which have place d him at risk of perse cution should he be re turned to China. B. Fe ar of Future P rosec ution. W e a l s o f i n d th a tG e h a s r a i s e d

a v a l i d qu e s t i o no f

l aw c o n c e r

n i n g w h e th e r

th e B IA proper ly applied this Court’s holding in Tun v. I NS, 445 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2006), in de termining that Ge ha d not proffe red suf ficient e vidence that he would fa ce pe rsec ution should he be returne d to China. Bef

ore the BIA, Ge c ontended that he was e ligible f or re lief bec ause of evidenc e he pr esente d reg ardingthe per secution of CDP members who are returne d to China. Th e B I A d id n ot d isr e g ard thi s e vid e nc e . O n th e c on tr ary , a s a lr e a dy no te d, it m a de re fe re nc e to “the 2006 United States D epar tment of [S tate] Country

Report on China . . . [which] provides10

that CDP activists som etimes are targ eted f or ar rest or a rbitrar y detention . . . .” The BIA, howeve r, held that Ge ’s claim fa iled under Tun be cause in that case “ther e wa s evidenc e that the Bur mese g overnme nt conducts extensive intelligenc e-g ather ing a nd surveillance on g roups of B ur me se e xpa tr iate s w ho are po lit ic a lly a c tiv e a g a ins t th e B ur

me se g ov e rnme nt, ” wh ile “ the re is no indication that China tracks e x patriate political activists.” Th is r e a din g of

Tun ma ke s a g ra nt o f r e lie f c on tin g e nt u

po n a sh ow ingthat th e c ountr

y to wh ic h th e pe tit ion e r i s to be re tur ne d c on du c ts s uc h e xten siv e mon ito ri nga c tiv iti e s b e y on d it s bo rd e rs that it

c an b e a ssume d th a t th e a uth or iti e s h ave be c ome awa re that th e pe tit ion e r h ims e lf has bee n involved with a banne d org anization while living abr oad. B ut this i s not the standard
we have a do pte d. In a

c a se c oin c ide nta lly

inv olv ingthe a sylum

c la im o f a

CD P me mbe r, thi s Court rec ently

discussed its holding in Tun: To de mon str a te that “ [his ] fe ar o f [f utu re ] pe rs e c uti on

is w e llfounded,” [ ] an applica

nt must establish t hat his putative “per secutor is, or c ould become, a war e of the applicant’ s possession of the disfavor ed belief or cha rac teristic.” [Tun, 445 F .3 d at 56 5] A s w e have e xpla ine d, an a pp lic ant c an ma

ke thi s showing in one of two wa y s: first, by

offe ring evidenc e that “he or she would be sing led out individually for pe rsec ution”; and sec ond, by “prov[ing] the existence of ‘ a patter n or pra ctice in his or he r country of nationality

. . . of per secution of a

g roup of pe rsons simil arly situated to the applica

nt’ . . . and . . . e stablish[ ing] ‘his or her own inclusion in, and identification with, such [a] group.’ ” I d. at 564 (quoting8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)( 2)(iii)). Put si mply , to establish a well-f ounded fe ar of

perse cution in t he a bs e nc e of any e vid e nc e of

pa st p e rs e c uti on , a

n a lie n mu st make so me sh ow ingthat a uth or iti e s in

his c ountr

y of natio na lity are e ith e r a

wa re of his a c tiv iti e s o r l ike ly

to b e c ome awa

re of his a c tiv iti e s. Ho ng sh e ngL e ngv. Muka se y , 5 28 F .3 d 1 35 , 1 42 -4 3 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 8) (p e r c ur iam) (e mph a sis11

added)
. Thus , T un

do e s n ot r e qu ir e a

pe tit ion e r t o d e mon str a te that a uth or iti e s in

the c ountr

y to which he is to be r eturne d are possessed of a n awa rene ss of his involvement in a banned org anization prior to his return. Rather , a petitioner ma y also demonstrate a we ll-founded f ear of futur e pe rs e c uti on

by de mon str a tin g that hi s invo lve me nt i n a ba nn e d o rg anizatio n ma

y be c ome kn o wn af t er h i s re turn . T h i s i s p re ci s el y wh at wa rr an t eda r em an d i nHo n gs h en g L en g: The I J , while conc luding that L enghad not testified c re dib ly a s to his be lie f t

hat th e g ov e rnme nt o f t

he [Peo ple s’ Re pu bli c of Chi na (“ PRC” )] w a s a

wa re of his CD P me mbe rs hip and po lit ic a l a c tiv iti e s, did

no t make any

sp e c if ic fi nd inga s to whether other e vidence in the rec ord supports this claim [of future perse cution]. According ly , we r emand this matter f or the ve ry limit ed purpose of allowingthe I J to consider whe ther a uthorities of the PRC were ( 1) aw are or (2) likely to become a

war e of L eng ’s a c tiv iti e s. 528 F.3d at 143. We find remand is prope r her e to re open the r ecor d to permit Ge to pre sent additional evidenc e as to the Chinese g overnme nt’s likely future a war eness of

his involvement with the CDP. On remand, the I J should determine whe ther Ge has made a substantial showing of 1) a we ll f ound e d f e ar o f f utu re pe rs e c uti on , b e c a

us e 2) the Chi ne se g ov e rnme nt i s li ke ly to become awa

re of his membership in the CDP after his re turn to China. C. Due P roce ss Claim . Ge a sserts that the ag ency violated due pr ocess be cause the I J initially made a n oral ruling g rantingwithholding of r emoval, but at a later he aringreve rsed this dec ision without explanation. W hile the I J ’s ac tion is unex plained, we find that, eve n assuming a rguendo that Ge’ s due proc ess claim has some me rit, any injury suffe red a s a re sult has been c ured be cause Ge has bee n aff

orded the requisite full and f air opportunity

to liti g ate the me rits of his withholding12

of re moval claim bef

ore the BIA and this Court. See Yu ShengZ hangv. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 362 F.3d 155, 159 ( 2d Cir. 2004). D. De nia l of R e lie f Unde r CA T. Finally , Ge c ontends that the B I A er red by “complete ly ” fa iling to consider his claim for relief under CAT. We see , howeve r, no re a so n to dis tur b th e B I A’ s f

ind ingthat G e fa ile d to make a ny argument befor e it reg ardingCAT relief , and that the c laim could there fore be considere d as havingbeen a bandoned. See Gui Yin L iu v. I NS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007).

CO NC LU SION We G RA NT the petition for re view, VA CA TE the dec ision of the BIA deny ing G e’s claims for a sy lum and withholding of r emoval, and REMAND th e c as e f o r f urt h er p ro ce ed i n gs
c on sis te nt w iththi s o pin ion . T he de nia l of re lie f u nd e r C AT is AF F IRM ED
.