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 5-22-2009 

# Xiu Y un 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 . 08-3044

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 " Xiu Y un C he n v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1324. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1324NOT 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 os . 08- 3044 and 08- 3045 ( C ons ol i dat ed)

___________ XI U Y UN CH EN an d YO U C HEN P eti ti o n ers v. T H E A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S ,

R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i ons forR evi ew of an O r der o f th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls A gencyN os . A 97 753 222 and A 97 753 223 I m m i gr at i on J udge: E l i zabe t h A . K es s l er

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

M ay11, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : M ay22, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM X i u Y un C hen and Y ou C hen have fi l ed pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s , w hi ch di s m i s s ed thei rappea l fr om an I m m i gr at i onH erhus band, Y ou C hen, appar ent l yi nt ended a tfi r s tonl yt o gai n der i vat i ve as y l um 1 t hr ough hi s w i fe’ s appl i cat i on, pur s uantt o 8 U . S. C . § 1158( b) ( 3) ( A ) . T he G overnm ent r ai s ed s om e ques t i ons aboutt he t i m el i nes s of X i u Y un C hen’ s as y l um appl i cat i on, and not ed thati f herappl i cat i on w er e unt i m el y , s he w oul d onl ybe el i gi bl e forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval orpr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( C A T ) . N o doubtbeca us e a s p o u s e ma yn o td e r i v e p r o t e c t i o n t h r o u g h h i s wi f e ’ s s u c c e s s f

u l wi t h h o l d i n g o rCA T cl ai m , Y ou C hen l at erfi l ed hi s ow n as y l um appl i cat i on ( w hi ch w oul d al s o be cons t rued as an appl i cat i on forw i thhol di ng of r emoval and pr ot ect i on undert he C A T ) . Y ou C hen di d not , how ever , i ncl ude anycl ai m s t hatw er e di ffe r entfr om hi s w i fe’ s , nordi d he al l ege t hathe per s onal l yexper i ence d per s ecut i on. See Li - Z heng v. A t t or neyG ener al , N o. 07- 2135, __ F. 3d __, 2009 W L 398257 ( 3d C i r . Feb. 19, 2009) ( al i en notent i t l ed t o r efuge e s t atus bas ed on per s ecut i on of hi s s pous e) . W e ther efor e do notcons t rue hi s appl i cat i on as an appl i cat i on foras y l um i n hi s ow n r i ght , butr atheras an appl i cat i on forder i vat i ve asy lum . (T h e G o v ern m en t ult im atelyd id n o t pu rsue it s arg u m en t th at X iu Y u n C h en ’s as y l um appl i cat i on w as unt i m el y . ) R efe r ence s i n t hi s opi ni on t o “C hen” a r e t o X i u Y un C h e n , th e le a d a p p lic a n t. 2 J u d g e ’ s ( I J ’ s ) f

i n a l r e mo v a l o r d e r . We wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w. B ec au se th e p arti es a re f am il iar w ith the f

ac ts, w e w il l r ec o u n t th em in su m m ary fas hi on. T he C hens , a mar r i ed coupl e fr om C hi na, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es w i t hout i ns pect i on i n O ct ober2002. X i u Y un C hen fi l ed an a s y l um appl i cat i on i n O ct ober2003, bas ed on heral l egat i on t hats he had be en per s ecut ed i n C hi na. C hen t es t i fi ed thats he 1 and herhus band had thei rfi r s tchi l d i n 1994. T her eaf t er , C hi nes e bi r t h contr ol cadr es re q u ir e d h e r t o u s e b ir th c o n tr o l; f ir s t, a d e v ic e im p la n te d in h e r a rm , a n d la te r, a n IU D . I n ear l y1999, s he had the I U D r emoved becaus e s he w ant ed t o have mor e chi l dr en. She beca m e pr egnanti n February1999 and w enti nt o hi di ng atheraunt ’ s hom e. I n J une 1999, pol i ce c ame t o heraunt ’ s hom e t o i nves t i gat e a ne arbyr obbery . W hen theys aw C hen, t heynot ed thats he w as notr egi s t er ed i n t hatar ea a nd ques t i oned heraboutherT he C hens ’ fi r s ts on r emai ned behi nd i n C hi na. 2 3 th e n -o b v io u s p re g n a n c y . T h e p o lice lef t, bu t re tu rn e d o n e -h a lf

h o u r la ter w ith a b irth c o n tr o l o f

f ic e r a n d a v illa g e o f

f ic e r a n d f

o rc e d C h e n to c o m e w ith th e m to th e h o s p ita l. A tt he hos pi t al , s he r ece i ved an i nj ect i on nearhernavel and w as for ced t o have a n a b o rtio n , alth o u g h sh e d id n o t w a n t o n e . W h ile s h e w a s re c o v e rin g in th e h o sp ital, s om ebodyatt he hos pi t al puta pi ece of pape r , a “bi r t h contr ol s ur gerycert i fi cat e, ” i n her han d. T he C hen s l eftfor the U nit ed S t at es i n O ct ob er 2002 , w i t h the hel p o f snak ehead s, beca us e theyw ant ed t o have mor e chi l dr en. T he C hens had a s econd c hi l d i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n D ece m ber2003. 2 T he I J m ade a n adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng, bas ed on i nves t i gat or yr epor t s t hat concl uded thatt he bi r t h contr ol s ur gerycert i fi cat e w as i nval i d. T he For ens i c D ocument L abor at or y( FD L ) of the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof H om el and Secur i t y( D H S) r epor t ed t hatt he ce r t i fi cat e w as “notgenui ne, ” not i ng t hat“[p] hy s i cal evi dence es t abl i s hes t hatt he documenti s s ame sour ce a s s oci at ed w i t h vendor - pr oduced doc um ent s s een i n unr el at ed FD L cas e s ubm i s s i ons . ” A . R . 172. I n a s econd i nves t i gat i on, an i nves t i gat orfr om t he D H S’ s U ni t ed St at es C i t i zens hi p and I m m i gr at i on Ser vi ces w hi t ed outC hen’ s name on t he ce r t i fi cat e and s enta copyof i tt o G uant ou C entr al H os pi t al of Li anj i ang C ount yt o be ver i fi ed. T he hos pi t al r epl i ed thatt he ce r t i fi cat e w as fabr i cat ed fort w o r eas ons : fi r s t , t he cert i fi cat e w as s i gned bya doct ornamed L i n, Y i ng, butno doct orbyt hatname w or ked at t he D epart m entof G ynecol ogyand O bs t etr i cs att he hos pi t al i n 1999; s econd, t heT he pr ovi s i ons of the R eal I D A ctof 2005 r egar di ng cr edi bi l i tydo notappl yt o cas es 3 s uch as t hi s one, w her e the as y l um appl i cat i on w as fi l ed bef or e the ena ctm entof the R eal I D A ct . R eal I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, D i v. B , § 101, 119 St at . 231 ( M ay11, 4 cert i fi cat e i ndi cat ed thatt he medi cat i on “ethacr i di ne” ha d been us ed i n t he pr ocedur e, but it i s n o t n e c e ss a ryto u se th a t m e d ica tio n f o r a b o rtio n o p e ra tio n s. A .R . 1 8 8 . In a d d iti o n to f in d in g th a t C h e n w a s n o t cr e d ib le, th e IJ a lso e x p re ss e d c o n c e rn a b o u t C h e n ’s f a ilu re to pr ovi de corr obor at i on fr om heraunt( w ho hi d her ) and hers i s t er( w ho advi s ed hert o have herI U D r emoved) . T he I J deni ed r el i ef, exce ptt hats he gr ant ed the C hens ’ appl i cat i on forvol unt arydepartur e. O n a p p e a l, th e B IA f

o u n d th a t th e IJ’ s a d v e rse c re d ib ili tyf in d in g w a s n o t cle a rly err oneous , bas ed on the i nves t i gat i ons t hatfound the abort i on cert i fi cat e nott o be g e n u in e , an d f

o u n d n o c lea r e rro r in th e IJ’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e c e rtific a te w a s c e n tra l to C h e n ’s c laim . T h e B IA a lso f o u n d n o e rro r in th e IJ’ s f in d in g th a t C h e n f

a iled to c o rr o b o ra te h e r c la im w ith e v id e n c e th a t s h e c o u ld re a s o n a b ly b e e x p e c te d to p ro d u c e . T he B I A t her efor e di s m i s s ed the C hens ’ appea l . T he C hens eac h fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew , w hi ch w er e cons ol i dat ed. A n adver s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng s houl d be uphel d t o t he ext enti ti s s uppor t ed by r eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e, and s houl d onl ybe r ever s ed i f ther e i s evi dence s o compel l i ng t hatno r eas onabl e fa ct fi nder co u ld co n clud e a s the IJ did . C au sh i v. A tt o rne yG en era l, 4 3 6 F . 3 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 (3d C ir . 2006) . A nydi s cr epanc i es m us ti nvol ve the hea r tof the cl ai m . I d. at229. W e hol d t hat 32 0 0 5 ).

C h e n sp e c u late s in h e r b rie f th a t th e h o sp ital m ig h t h a v e g iv e n h e r a f a k e c e rtific a te 4 beca us e theydi d notw anti tknow n t hatt heyfor ced he rt o have a n abor t i on. B uts ee C hen v. G on zal es, 43 4 F . 3d 21 2, 21 9 (3d C i r. 20 05 ) ( referri ng t o “the com m on sense not i on t hatgovernm entoffi ci al s w ho for ce a w om an t o abor ta chi l d w oul d har dl ybe li k elyto issue a c erti fica te att esti n g to tha t fac t, esp ec ial lysinc e the C o u n tryR ep o rt ind icates tha t use o f su ch fo rce is no t of ficial go v ern m en t po li cy ”). 5 . t he adve r s e cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng her e i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . C h en ch all en g es th e a g en cy ’s de term ination that sh e w as n o t cred ible. In par t i cul ar , s he as s ai l s t he r el i abi l i t yof the D H S’ s i nves t i gat i ve r epor t s concl udi ng t hather b irth co n tr o l surg eryce rt ifi ca te w as f ab ri ca ted. S h e a rgu es th at th e inv esti g ator’s rep o rt w as bas ed upon the s t at ement s of hos pi t al per s onnel w ho had i ncent i ve t o be l es s t han f o rth rig h t, giv e n th a t an a c c u sa tio n o f h u m a n rig h ts v io latio n s w a s a t issu e . S h e in sis ts th a t th e c e rt if

ic a te s h e p re s e n te d w a s th e o n e th a t w a s g iv e n to h e r a t th e h o s p ita l. W e are not per suaded byC hen ’s argum ents . F i rs t , her ass ert i on t hat the C hinese v e r i f y i n g a u t h o r i t i e s we r e n o tc a n d i d i n t h e i ra s s e s s me n t s i s b a s e d o n h e ro wn s pecul at i on. Second, C hen has notadequa t el yexpl ai ned w hyt he hos pi t al w oul d hand her a f a k e c e rtific a te ra th e r th a n n o c e rtific a te a t all. 4 B eca us e the r ecor d does notcompel us t o fi nd t hatC hen w as cr edi bl e, w e do not r eac h t he i s s ue of w hethert he I J pr oper l yexpec t ed corr obor at i on of hercl ai m . Fort he f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n s f o rr e v i e w.