2009 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 12-16-2009 

# An Q ing W u 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 . 08-3875

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " An Qin g W

u v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 99. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/99NOT 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

___________ N o. 08- 3875

___________ A N Q IN G W U , Pet i t i oner v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 200- 037- 096) Im m i grat i on Judg e: E ug ene P ug l i ese

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber2, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , J O R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed D ece m ber16, 2009 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M. A n Q i ng W u, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na, s eeks r evi ew o f a f i n a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l e n t e r e d b yth e B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s ( “ B I A ” ) . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.2 I. W u, a tw enty - s i x- y ear - ol d unm arr i ed mal e, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es vi a M exi co on A ugus t7, 2005. T he governm enti s s ued a N ot i ce t o A ppearthe nextday , char gi ng W u as an al i en pr es entw i t houtbei ng admi t t ed orpar ol ed. W u conce ded r emovabi l i t yas char ged, and venue overhi s r emoval pr ocee di ng w as tr ans ferr ed, atW u’ s r eques t , fr om T e x a s t o N e w J e r s e y. I n p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e th e I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) i n N e w J e r s e y, W u appl i ed foras y l um , w i t hhol 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 ”) . W u cl ai m ed thathe s uffe r ed pas tper s ecut i on, and fe ar ed f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n , f

o r h a v in g d is s e m in a te d c e n s o re d n e w s m a te ri a ls o v e r t h e in te rn e t. I n hi s w r i t t en as y l um appl i cat i on fi l ed M ay18, 2006, W u al l eged thathe i s fr om F u jian P ro v in c e , an d w a s in th e w h o les a le s e a f o o d a n d tim b e r b u sin e ss b e g in n in g in 20 01 . In 200 3, he all eged l yl earned from a form er s cho olm at e nam ed C hen ho w t o acce ss “p o li ti ca ll yce n so red n ew s” o v er the interne t, inclu d ing ac ce ss to w eb sit es th at w ere b lo c k e d b yth e C h in e se g o v e rn m e n t. A f ter C h e n h e lp e d W u in sta ll p ro x yso f tw a re o n h is c o m p u ter to o p e n b lo c k e d site s, W u c laim s th a t h e b e g a n se n d in g c e n so re d n e w s to fr i ends , par t i cul ar l ynew s aboutgovernm entcorrupt i on, al ong w i t h W u’ s backgr ound anal y s i s on t he corrupt i on. W u al l egedl ys entthes e emai l s fr om hi s hom e comput erorat

“ w e b b a rs ” u s in g in te rn e t a c c e s s s e rv ic e c a rd s . W u c l a i ms t h a to n De c e mb e r2 0 , 2 0 0 3 , l o c a l p o l i c e d e t a i n e d a n d i n t e r r o g a t e d h i m, and conf i s cat ed hi s comput er . T he pol i ce a l l egedl ydi s cover ed the pr oxyand ques t i oned3

W u as t o hi s “s our ce, ” w hi ch W u r efus ed t o di s cl os e. W u cl ai m s thatthe pol i ce s l apped h im a n d re le a s e d h im a f te r t h re e d a y s . W u ’s c o m p u te r w a s re tu rn e d to h im . W u t her eaf

t ercea s ed s endi ng the emai l s , and he c l ai m s thatbefor e C hi nes e N ew Y ear , 2004, a pol i ce of

fi ceri nt err ogat ed hi m as t o w hyhe w as no l ongerdoi ng s o. O ne m onth l at er , t he off

i ceral l egedl yagai n ques t i oned W u, and advi s ed thatW u w oul d “have no m or e pr obl ems” i f he i dent i fi ed the per s on w ho t aughthi m t o i ns t al l and ac ces s the p r o x y . Th e o f

f i c e ra l l e g e d l yt h r e a t e n e d t o a r r e s tW u a n d h a r m h i s b u s i n e s s . W u c l a i ms th a t h e re f

u se d to c o o p e ra te. In th e tw o m o n th s th a t f o llo w e d , W u ’s b u sin e ss a lleg e d ly “w as goi ng dow n, ” and he w as t ol d bya w hol es al erthatthe pol i ce ha d i ns t ruct ed hi m not t o s el l t i m bert o W u. W u t hen dec i ded t o l eave C hi na. O n A pr i l 15, 2004, W u cl ai m s thathe w as arr es t ed i n I nnerM ongol i a, C hi na, as he w a s m a k in g h is w a yto R u ss ia. W u a lleg e d lyw a s d e tain e d , an d a n o f f ice r h it W u w ith h is hands . A n offi ceral s o al l egedl yt hr ew a w at ergl as s atW u, w i t h t he gl as s br eaki ng on W u ’s sh o u lder a n d fa ll ing to the g rou n d . T h e o ff icer p u sh ed W u to the g rou n d , an d W u ’s r i ghtel bow w as cutbyt he br oken gl as s . W u cl ai m s thathe di d notr ece i ve pr oper m e d ica l trea tm e n t f

o r th e w o u n d . O n A p ril 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 , af ter W u h a d sp e n t f

if tee n d a y s in det ent i on, W u’ s fatherpai d bai l of 20, 000 R M B , and W u w as r el eas ed. A ft err etur ni ng hom e, W u cl ai m s thathe w as i nt err ogat ed byl ocal pol i ce, w ho thr eat ened hi m and i nt er fer ed w i t h hi s bus i nes s . W u agai n deci ded t o l eave C hi na, w hi ch h e d id in M a rc h 2 0 0 5 , a rr iv in g in th e U n ite d S ta te s in A u g u s t 2 0 0 5 .4

W u t es t i fi ed bef

or e the I J on Sept ember29, 2006. H e s t at ed thathe l eftC hi na beca us e, i nt eral i a, “[t ] her e w er e l i m i t at i ons s eton m e, and I w as t or tur ed. ” W u t es t i fi ed th a t th e p o lice d isc o v e re d h is a c tiv ityo f sp re a d in g c e n so re d n e w s, le a d in g to h is i nt err ogat i on on D ece m ber20, 2003, w hen he w as s l apped i n t he fa ce. A m ong ot her thi ngs , W u r ecount ed hi s al l eged f i r s tat t empt t o l eave C hi na, hi s arr es ti n I nner M ongol i a, and hi s fi ft een- daydet ent i on, w hen he a l l egedl ys uffe r ed the i nj uryt o hi s r i ght el bow . W u t es t i fi ed thathe w as “unders ur vei l l ance ” af t erhe r eturned fr om I nner M o n g o lia, a n d th a t lo c a l p o lice c o n tac ted W u th re e tim e s in a n e f f o rt to d isc o v e r h is s our ce. W u s t at ed thati f he r etur ned t o C hi na, “theyw oul d m oni t orm e and myper s onal fr eedom w oul d be l i m i t ed and theym i ghtt or tur e me agai n and s end me back t o t he p o lic e m a n a g a in .” T he I J r ender ed an or al deci s i on i n w hi ch he r ej ect ed W u’ s cr edi bi l i t yand deni ed al l r el i ef. T he I J found W u’ s t es t i m ony“t oo confus i ng” t o m eethi s bur den of pr oof, and thatW u had omi t t ed i m por t antdet ai l s and i nform at i on r egar di ng hi s cl ai m s . T he I J not ed thatW u fai l ed t o r evea l anypar t i cul arfee l i ngs r egar di ng governm entcorrupt i on i n C hi na, fai l ed t o s ubm i tcopi es of the purpor t ed emai l s he had s ent , and s ubm i t t ed “vi r tual l yno co rrob o rati o n ” f

o r his test im o n y . W h il e a ck n o w ledg ing the e x ist en ce o f a sca r on W u ’s arm , the I J coul d notconcl ude fr om the evi dence thatthe i nj uryr es ul t ed fr om t or tur e or per s ecut i on. T he I J al s o found thatthe D ece m ber2003 and A pr i l 2004 i nci dent s i n pol i ce cus t odydo notr i s e t o t he l evel of pas tper s ecut i on. T he I J found W u’ s t es t i m ony“fort he5

m o s tp a r tv a g u e a n d d i f f i c u l tt o u n d e r s t a n d a n d n o tc o m p e l l i n g a ta l l , ” a n d n o t e d th a tWu “appe ar ed thr oughoutt he hea r i ng t o be uncomfor t abl e, t o be nervous and t o nothave a ny n a rra tiv e strin g to h is te stim o n y .” T h e IJ c ited in p a rticu lar W u ’s in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts reg ard ing the p o li ce ac ti v ityaf ter he return ed fro m Inn er M o n g o li a. F inally , the IJ o b se rv e d th a t, ba se d o n in f o rm a tio n in th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t C o u n tryR e p o rt, “it w o u ld a p p e a r t h a t th e a c tu a l c h a n c e o f b e in g ja ile d f

o r I n te rn e t w ri tin g is e x tr e m e ly re m o te ,” m aki ng i tunl i kel yt hatW u w as arr es t ed fori nt ernetus age. T he I J al s o found no evi dence thatW u w oul d m or e l i kel yt han notbe t or tur ed upon r eturn t o C hi na. T h e B IA d ism iss e d W u ’s a p p e a l, ho ld in g th a t th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on w as notcl ear l yerr oneous . T he B I A agr eed w i t h t he I J thatW u’ s “vague ” t es t i m ony , combi ned w i t h a l ack of corr obor at i ng evi dence , fai l ed t o s how thathe had engage d i n di s s ent i entact i vi t yoverthe i nt ernet . O n t he bas i s of the r eas ons s t at ed i n the I J ’ s deci s i on, t he B I A aff i r m ed the conc l us i ons thatW u fai l ed t o offe rcr edi bl e t es t i m ony t o es t abl i s h pas tper s ecut i on, a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, ora l i kel i hood of to rt u re . W u tim e ly f

ile d h is p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w in th is C o u rt . II . W e have j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 1) t o r evi ew the B I A ’ s fi nal or der of r emoval . W hen, as her e, t he B I A i s s ues i t s ow n deci s i on butaff i r m s s ubs t ant i al l yon the bas i s of the I J ’ s s t at ed r eas ons , w e r evi ew both deci s i ons . C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e mustuphol d t he fa ctual det erm i nat i ons m ade dur i ng6

admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs i f theyar e “s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr ob a t i ve e vi de nc e on t he r e c or d c on s i de r e d a s a w ho l e . ” I N S v. El i a s - Zac a r i a s , 50 2 U. S. 478, 481 ( 1992) ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1105a( a) ( 4) ) . W e appl ythi s s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d t o r evi ew an adve r s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on. B ut tv. G onzal es , 429 F. 3d 430, 4 3 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A n a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n m u st b e su p p o rte d b ysu f f icie n t, cogentr eas ons . I d. at434. A n adver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on thati s s uppor t ed by su f f icie n t ev id e n c e is u p h e ld u n les s “ ‘a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to co n clud e to th e c o n tr ary . ’” C h en , 3 7 6 F . 3 d at 22 2 (qu o ti n g 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B )). U n d er the p rov isi o n s o f th e R E A L ID A ct, w h ich th e B IA co rrectl yn o ted a re a p p lica b le h e re , the IJ, a f ter “ [ c ]o n sid e rin g th e to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, a n d a ll r el evantfac t or s , ” maybas e an a dver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i on

on t he demeanor , candor , orr es pons i venes s of the appl i cant orw i t nes s , t he i nher entpl aus i bi l i t yof the appl i cant ’ s or w i t nes s ’ s acc ount , t he cons i s t encybetw een the appl i cant ’ s or w i t nes s ’ s w r i t t en and or al s t at ement s ( w heneve rm ade a nd w hetherornotunderoath, and cons i der i ng the ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch the s t at ement s w er e made) , the i nt ernal cons i s t encyof ea ch s uch s t at ement , the cons i s t encyof s uch s t at ement s w i t h ot herevi dence of r ecor d ( i ncl udi ng the r epor t s of the D epart m entof St at e on countr ycondi t i ons ) , and anyi nacc ur aci es orfal s ehoods i n s uch s t at ement s , w i t hout r egar d t o w hetheran i ncons i s t ency , i nacc ur acy , orfal s ehood goes t o t he hea r tof the appl i cant ’ s cl ai m , oranyot her relev an t fac tor. 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 5 8 (b)(1 )(B )(i ii ). U po n a revi ew of the recor d, w e fi nd subst anti al evidence to supp ortthe ad verse

### Weno tethat , a lt ho ug h this Court

has not yet

addres se d w hether

the new 1 

### c r e dibi l i ty

s t and ar d o f 8 U. S. C. § 1 15 8(b) ( 1) ( B) ( i i i ) i s c on s i s t e nt wi th dueproc e s s , we are satisf iedth at Wu ’s ch allen g e to th e B IA ’s adv erse cred ib ility f in d in g w o u ldf

ail un d er th e p re-RE A L ID A ct stan d ard , as w ell. 7 cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on. T he I J pr i m ar i l ynot ed the i ncons i s t encyi n W u’ s t es t i m ony w ith reg ard to ev en ts up o n W u ’s return fro m h is al lege d firstatt em p t t o leav e C h ina. In h is a sy lu m a p p lica tio n , W u sta ted th a t th e p o lice th re a ten e d h im a n d in ter f e re d w ith h is bus i nes s upon r etur n. I n hi s t es t i m onybefor e the I J , W u s t at ed thathe w as put“under s u r v e i l l a n c e ” a n d c o n t a c t e d t h r e e t i m e s b yth e a u t h o r i t i e s . A f t e rth e I J q u e s t i o n e d Wu a b o u t h is f

a ilu re to m e n tio n in h is te stim o n yth a t th e p o lice h a d th re a ten e d h im a n d h is b u sin e ss , W u th e n sta ted th a t h e w a s in ter ro g a ted th re e tim e s a t th e p o lice sta tio n a n d to ld thathe w oul d be i m pr i s oned i f he r efus ed t o r evea l hi s s our ce. T he i ncons i s t enci es and o m iss io n s in W u ’s s tate m e n ts a b o u t th e se im p o rta n t ev e n ts – e v e n ts th a t alle g e d ly compel l ed W u t o at t empt a s econd de par tur e fr om C hi na – pr ovi de r ecor d s uppor tforan ad v erse cre d ibil ityfin d ing . F u rth erm o re, give n the a b sen ce o f c o rrob o rati n g rec o rd evi dence forW u’ s al l eged pol i t i cal opi ni ons and i nt ernetact i vi t i es , W u’ s vague t es t i m ony abouthi s pol i t i cal i nt ent i ons and i nt ernetact i vi t i es , and the I J ’ s expr es s ed conc erns about W u’ s demeanor , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatanyr eas onabl e adj udi cat orw oul d be compel l ed t o fi nd W u’ s t es t i m onycr edi bl e. 1 W u ar gues t hatt he I J and B I A err ed by“i gnor i ng” W u’ s document aryevi dence re f lec tin g h is a rre st in In n e r M o n g o lia f o r a n ill e g a l b o rd e r c ro ss in g a n d tre a tm e n t f o r h is

### Wu do es no t argue his c laim fo r mandatory

withho lding o f remov alin his bri ef 2 

### to th is C o urt, an dthu s w e d eem th at issu e w aiv edan dd o n o t ad dress it.

8 el bow i nj ur y . W hi l e W u ar gues t hatthi s evi dence corr obor at ed hi s s t ory , i tdoes not ap p ea r fro m the re co rd th at th e IJ o r B IA o v erloo k ed this ev iden ce . Ind ee d , the B IA e x p re s s ly o b s e rv e d th a t th e IJ “ s p e c if ic a lly n o te d ” a n d “ c o n s id e re d ” th is e v id e n c e . M o re o v e r, as th e B IA e x p lain e d , ev e n if th e IJ o v e rsta ted W u ’s e v id e n tiary om iss io n s in concl udi ng t hatt her e w as no corr obor at i on forW u’ s cl ai m ed fi r s tat t empt t o l eave C hi na, there is sub stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd to su p p o rtthe IJ’s u lt im ate rejec ti o n o f W u ’s cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng t he i ncons i s t enci es i n W u’ s t es t i m ony , the abs ence of corr obor at i on for hi s al l eged pol i t i cal opi ni ons and i nt ernetact i vi t i es , and the I J ’ s adver s e per cept i on of W u ’s d e m e a n o r. F inally , W u ch all en g es th e d en ial o f h is cl aim fo r C A T reli ef. T o b e e li g ible fo r a 2 w i thhol di ng of r emoval undert he C A T , W u had t o s how thati ti s m or e l i kel ythan not thathe w i l l be t or tur ed i n C hi na. See 8 C . F. R . § 208. 16( c) ( 2) ; Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 4 -75 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T o rtu re is de fin ed as th e inten ti o n al i n fli cti o n o f se v ere pai n ors uffe r i ng “byoratt he i ns t i gat i on of orw i t h t he cons entoracqui es cenc e of a p u b lic o f f ic ia l o r o th e r p e rs o n a c tin g in a n o f f ic ia l c a p a c ity.” 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 8 (a )( 1 ). W u ar gues t hathe w as t or tur ed i n A pr i l 2004 beca us e the pol i ce thr ew hi m t o t he gr ound, r es ul t i ng i n t he cuton hi s arm , and fa i l ed t o pr ovi de pr om ptm edi cal tr eatm entfor the i nj ur y . W u cl ai m s t hatt hi s “pas tt or tur e” s ugges t s a pr obabi l i t ythathe w i l l be9

t or tur ed aga i n. T he r ecor d, how ever , r efl ect s s ubs t ant i al evi dence forthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng t hat the A pr i l 2004 i nci dentdoes notr i s e t o t he l evel of pas tper s ecut i on. See Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F .3 d 1 2 3 3 , 1 2 4 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (d e f in in g p e rse c u tio n a s “ th re a ts to life , co n f in e m e n t, t or tur e, and ec onom i c r es t r i ct i ons s o s ever e thattheycons t i tut e a thr eatt o l i fe or fr eedom, ” and e xpl ai ni ng t hatper s ecut i on “does notencompas s al l tr eatm entthatour s oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us toreven unl aw ful oruncons t i tut i onal ”) . W u has not s how n thathe w i l l be s i ngl ed outfort or tur e upon r eturn t o C hi na, and the r ecor d does not c o mp e l a c o n c l u s i o n c o n t r a r yt o t h e o n e r e a c h e d b yth e I J a n d BI A. III . W e h a v e c o n sid e re d W u ’s r e m a in in g a rg u m e n ts b u t f in d th e m w ith o u t m e rit an d in n e e d o f n o d i s c u s s i o n . 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 yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.