2008 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 5-2-2008 

# C he n 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 . 06-4679

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_2008

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 2008 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 " C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1279. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1279T he H onor abl e G us t ave D i amond, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge forthe W es t ern D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 NOT 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 C as e N o: 06- 4679 S HE N XI ANG C HE N, Pet i t i oner v. ALB ERTO GO NZA LEZ, ATTO RN EY G ENER AL,

R es pondent O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a 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 76- 505- 798 Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

February15, 2008 Be f o r e : SLOV I TER A ND SM I TH , C i r cui tJudges , a n d D IA M O N D , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: M ay2, 2008) OP I NI ON D IA M O N D , D is tr i ct

Judge .2

Shen X i ang C hen, a C hi nes e nat i onal , s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval i s s ued bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m i ng a dec i s i on of the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) deny i ng C hen’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on underthe C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) . Forthe r eas ons s e tf o r th b e l o w, we wi l l d e n yCh e n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I . B ec au se w e w ri te princ ipallyfo r th e p arti es, w e w il l st ate o n lythe f ac ts ne ce ssary forouranal y s i s . I n Februaryof 2000, C hen arr i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es V i r gi n I s l ands and i m m ediat el yw as t aken i nto cust od y . R em ov al proceed i ng s w ere i nst i tuted against hi m forbei ng an al i en noti n pos s es s i on of a va l i d entrydocument . C hen fi l ed an appl i cat i on, and l at eran amended appl i cat i on, foras y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval , and C A T pr ot ect i on cl ai m i ng pas tper s ecut i on and a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on on acc ountof pol i t i cal opi ni on, s peci fi cal l y , hi s oppos i t i on t o hi s gi r l fr i end’ s for ced abort i on, hi s vi ol at i on of C hi na’ s bi r th contr ol pol i cyand hi s i l l egal departur e fr om C hi na. C h e n a lleg e d in h is a m e n d e d a p p lica tio n th a t h e a n d h is g irlfr ien d w e re m a rrie d in a tr adi t i onal cer emonyi n C hi na on M ar ch 8, 1999. H ow ever , i ti s notdi s put ed thathe w a s n o t leg a llym a rrie d u n d e r C h in e se law , as th e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t d e n ied th e c o u p le a mar r i age l i cens e and r efus ed t o r egi s t erthe mar r i age be caus e C hen’ s gi r l fr i end w as u n d e r a g e a tth e t i me . Ch e n ’ s g i r l f r i e n d b e c a me p r e g n a n ti n Au g u s to f 1 9 9 9 . On3

N ovember7, 1999, offi ci al s fr om the l ocal fami l ypl anni ng offi ce vi s i t ed the home of C h e n ’s p a re n ts, w h e re C h e n a n d h is g irlfr ien d w e re liv in g , an d to o k C h e n ’s g irlfr ien d to under go an abort i on. C hen vi s i t ed the fa m i l ypl anni ng offi ce a nd engage d i n an ar gum ent w ith th e v ill a g e lea d e r. T h e n e x t d a y , C h e n re c e iv e d a su b p o e n a to a p p e a r a t th e p u b lic s e c u ri ty b u re a u . C h e n w e n t in to h id in g a n d s u b s e q u e n tly w a s s m u g g le d o u t o f C h in a . A fin e w as im p o sed o n C h en fo r his v iolati o n o f th e f am il yp lann ing p o li cyw h ich C h en ’s fatherpai d on behal f of hi s s on aft erC hen fl ed. T he I J ’ s fi r s tdeci s i on deny i ng C hen’ s appl i cat i ons foras y l um , w i thhol di ng fr om r e mo v a l , a n d CA T p r o t e c t i o n wa s r e ma n d e d b yth e BI A f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d i n g s . On D ece m ber8, 2004, aft eraddi t i onal hear i ngs and the cons i der at i on of addi t i onal evi dence , the IJ a g ain d en ied C h en ’s ap p li ca ti o n s. O n O ctob er 5 , 2 0 0 6 , the B IA d ism issed C h en ’s a p p e a l. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi nal or derof r emoval pur s uantt o 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). W e re v iew th e B IA ’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t u n d e r th e “ e x tre m e lyd e f e re n tial” s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s ta n d a rd . C hen v. A t t or ney G ener alof the U ni t ed Stat es , 491 F. 3d 100, 109 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . U nderthi s s t andar d, the B I A ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct“ar e conc l us i ve unl es s anyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o the contr ary . ” I d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . D et erm i nat i ons as t o w hetheran as y l um appl i canthas s uffe r ed fr om p erse cu ti o n o r w h ethe r th at i n d ividu al ha s a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture p erse cu ti o n are4

f a c tu a l a n d th u s a re e n title d to d e f e re n c e . W

ang v. G onz al ez , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 1 3 4 , 1 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). III . T o q u a lif yf o r a s y lu m , a p e titio n e r m u s t s h o w th a t h e is a “ re f u g e e .” 8 U .S .C . § 1158( b) ( 1) ( A ) . A n appl i cantm ayes t abl i s h hi s s t atus as a r efuge e bys how i ng ei thert hat h e h as b ee n su b

ject t o p ast p erse cu ti o n , o r th at he h as a w ell fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i ty , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup orpol i t i cal opi ni on. 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 42) . T he s t atut orydefi ni t i on of r efuge e p rov ides that “a p erso n w h o h as b ee n fo rce d to ab o rta p reg n an cyo r un d erg o inv o lun tary s t er i l i zat i on, orw ho has been pe r s ecut ed forfai l ur e orr efus al t o under go s uch a p ro c e d u re o r f

o r o th e r re sis tan c e to a c o e rc iv e p o p u latio n c o n tro l p ro g ra m ” is “ d e e m e d to h av e b ee n p erse cu ted o n ac co u n t of p o li ti ca l op inion . ” 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 0 1 (a)(42 )(b). U nderthe for egoi ng pr ovi s i on, the B I A al l ow s one s pous e’ s per s ecut i on orfea rof per s ecut i on bas ed upon a f or ced a bor t i on ori nvol unt arys t er i l i zat i on t o be i m put ed t o t he o th e r s p o u s e , Ma tter o

f C -Y -Z , 21 I . & N . D ec. 915 ( B I A 1997) and In r e S-L -L , 2 4 I. & N . D ec. 1 ( B I A 2006) , and w e r ece nt l yuphel d the B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of thi s pr ovi s i on a s re a s o n a b le . C hen , 491 F. 3d at108. C h e n se e k s a sy lu m u n d e r § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 2 )(b ). H o w e v e r, th e B IA h a s lim ited its i nt erpr et at i on of thi s pr ovi s i on i n C -Y -Z t o appl i cant s w ho ar e l egal l ym arr i ed under C h in e s e la w . In r e S-L -L , 2 4 I. & N . D e c . at 4 . H e re , itis u n d isp u ted th a t C h e n a n d h is5

gi r l fr i end w er e notl egal l ym arr i ed underC hi nes e l aw , and S-L- L has cl ar i fi ed thatthe CY -Z rule d o es n o t app lyto u n m arried a p p li ca n ts cl aim ing p erse cu ti o n b ase d o n a p artne r’s a b o rt io n o r s te ri liz a tio n . Id; se e a lso C h e n v . A sh c ro ft , 381 F. 3d 221 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (de fe rri n g to B IA ’s disti n cti o n b etw ee n m arried a n d u n m arried c o u p les). T h u s, C h en ’s onl ypos s i bl e r ecour s e under§ 1101( a) ( 42) ( b) w oul d be t o es t abl i s h per s ecut i on orfea rof futur e per s ecut i on bas ed upon “otherr es i s t ance t o a coe r ci ve popul at i on contr ol pr ogr am. ” I

d. Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatC hen fa i l s t o qual i fyfor as y l um under§ 1101( a) ( 42) ( b) , as the r ecor d fai l s t o s how that , even a s s um i ng ar guendo thatC hen’ s ar gum entw i th t he vi l l age l eade rr egar di ng hi s gi r l fr i end’ s abort i on coul d be co n stru ed to co n sti tute “o ther res ist an ce to a c o erc ive p o p u lat ion co n tr o l pro g ram ”, th ere is no ev iden ce in the rec o rd th at he w as p erse cu ted, or h as a rea so n ab le fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on, bas ed upon s uch r es i s t ance . C hen w as neverarr es t ed forhi s ar gum entand the B I A ’ s concl us i on thatthe mer e i s s uance of a s ubpoena f orhi m t o appea ratthe pol i ce s ta tio n , w ith o u t m o re , is n o t ta n ta m o u n t to p e rs e c u tio n is e n title d to d e f e re n c e . See Li v. A t t or ney G ener alof

the U ni t ed Stat es , 400 F. 3d 157, 166- 67 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( per s ecut i on defi ned as “thr eat s t o l i fe, confi nement , t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es tr i ct i ons s o s ever e that theyco n sti tute a thre at t o li fe o r free d o m . ”). M o reo v er, th e B IA ’s co n clus ion that C h en ’s fea rof futur e per s ecut i on, bas ed ei theron hi s defi ance of the s ubpoena orhi s i l l egal departur e fr om C hi na, i s m er el ys pecul at i ve i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n l i ght6

of the fa ctthathi s gi r l fr i end al r eadyhas had the abort i on and hi s fatherhas pai d the fi ne f o rC h e n ’ s v i o l a t i o n o f

th e b i r th c o n tr o l p o l i c y.

I V. T h e B IA ’s d e n ial o f

C h e n ’s a p p lica tio n f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l li k e w ise is s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he governm entm us tgr antan appl i cantw i thhol di ng o f re m o v a l o n lyu p o n a d e m o n stra tio n o f a “ c lea r p ro b a b ili ty ” th a t u p o n h is re tu rn to h is hom e countr y , hi s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened on a ccountof r ace , r el i gi on, n a tio n a lity, m e m b e rs h ip in a p a rt ic u la r s o c ia l g ro u p , o r p o litic a l o p in io n . 8 U .S .C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) . B eca us e the thr es hol d foras y l um i s l ow erthan the thr es hol d for wi th h o l d i n g o f

r e mo v a l , o u rr e

j e c t i o n o f

Ch e n ’ s a s y l u m c l a i m n e c e s s a r i l yr e q u i r e s th a twe re je c t h is w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l c la im a s w e ll. W ang , 405 F. 3d at144. V . C h e n ’s c laim f

o r p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T a lso m u st b e re jec ted . A n a p p lica n t is e n tit led to w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l u n d e r th e C A T if h e e sta b lish e s th a t “it is m o re lik e ly than notthathe ors he w oul d be t or tur ed i f r emoved t o the pr opos ed countryof r emoval . ” 8 C . F. R . §1208. 16( c) ( 2) . T or tur e i s defi ned as “anyactbyw hi ch s ever e pai n ors uffe r i ng, w h e th e r p h y sic a l o r m e n tal, is in ten tio n a llyin f licte d ” b ya p u b lic o f

f icia l f o r c e rta in purpos es . 8 C . F. R . § 1208. 18( a) ( 1) . H er e, the r ecor d i s w hol l yber eftof anyevi dence w hat s oeverthatC hen w oul d be s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e s houl d he r eturn t o C hi na. Ac c o r d i n g l y , f

o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yCh e n ’ s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.