2007 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 4-12-2007 

# Y uang 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 . 05-4979

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_2007

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 2007 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 " Y uan g v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1317. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1317H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe D i s t r i ctof * N ew J er s ey , 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 N o. 05- 4979 F E YUANG , P eti ti o n er, v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , R e sp o n d e n t.

O n P e tit io n f

o r R e v iew o f

a n O rd e r o f

th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 71- 824- 239) I m m i gr at i on J udge: C har l es M . H oneym an Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February2, 2007 B e f o re : B A R R Y a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges , a nd I RE N A S, Seni orD is tr i ct Judge. * ( Fi l ed A pr i l 12, 2007) OP I NI ONT hi s C our tr evi ew s a B oar d deci s i on t o denyan appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng 1 r emoval , and pr ot ect i on undert he C A T underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. G ao v. A s hcr oft , 299 F. 3d 266, 272 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( ci t i ng A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ) . T hi s C our tm us tr evi ew the fa ctual det erm i nat i on as t o “[w ] hetheran asy lum ap p li ca n t has d em o n str ated p ast p erse cu ti o n o r a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on” undert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. I d. “The C our tw i l l uphol d t he a g e n c y ' s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t to th e e x ten t th a t th e ya re su p p o rte d b yre a so n a b le, s u b sta n tial, and pr obat i ve evi dence on t he r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” I d. 2 I RE NAS , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge . Pet i t i onerFe Y uang ( “Y uang”) s eeks r evi ew of a de ci s i on of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( t he “Boar d”) aff i r m i ng an I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng r emoval , and pr ot ect i on underthe U ni t ed N ati o n s C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re (the “ C A T ”). T h is C o u rtrev iew s the B o ard ’s deci s i on deny i ng Y uang’ s appl i cat i on underthe s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. 1 I. T h e P e tit io n e r, Y u a n g , is a 4 2 -y e a r-o ld n a tiv e a n d c iti z e n o f th e P e o p le’ s R e p u b lic of C hi na. Y uang i l l egal l yent er ed the U ni t ed St at es on oraboutSept ember13, 1992, and wa s c h a r g e d wi t h e x c l u d a b i l i t yp u r s u a n tt o th e I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na t i o n a l i t yAc t , 8 U. S . C. § 1182( a) ( 5) ( A ) ( i ) and ( a) ( 7) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) . Y uang w as s ubs equent l ydet ai ned and a hear i ng w as hel d, w here an IJ s ust ai ned t he ex cl ud abil i t ycharges. Yu a n g f i l e d a Re q u e s tf

o rAs y l u m o n o ra b o u tJ u n e 2 2 , 1 9 9 3 , p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. § 1158( a) ( 1) . O n N ovember22, 1994, I J Ferr i s hel d a hea r i ng and r ender ed an or al deci s i on hol di ng t hatY uang had notm ethi s bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a w el l - founded f earofT h e re aso n , if an y , fo r th e six -y ea r ga p b etw ee n the IJ’s d ec isi o n an d the B o ard ’s 2 deci s i on on appea l i s notappar entfr om the r ecor d. 3 per s ecut i on on acc ountof r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al g ro u p , o r p o lit ica l o p in io n . Y u a n g tes tifie d th a t h e f e a re d p e rse c u tio n if

h e re tu rn e d to C h in a b e c a u se o f

h is o u tsp o k e n o p p o sitio n to th e c o u n try ’s b irth c o n tro l p o licie s a n d h is r efus al t o under go s t er i l i zat i on. Y uang t es t i fi ed thathe w as det ai ned fortw o m ont hs by C h i n e s e a u t h o r i t i e s b e f

o r e e s c a p i n g f

r o m c u s t o d y. T h e IJ n o ted th at Y u an g ’s t esti m o n yw as n o t fu ll ycre d ible g iven the c o n clus o ry natur e of hi s s t at ement s conce r ni ng hi s fea rof per s ecut i on and the fa i l ur e of the author i t i es t o s t er i l i ze hi m dur i ng hi s tw o m ont h per i od of cus t ody . T he I J al s o found d isc re p a n c ies b e tw e e n Y u a n g ’s te stim o n ya n d h is R e q u e st f o r A sy lu m c o n c e rn in g h is e m p lo ym e n t, a n d w h e th e r h e e v e r w e n t in to h id in g a f te r e s c a p in g f

ro m c u s to d y . A ddi t i onal l y , Y uang s t at ed i n hi s s w orn aff i davi tt aken byan I N S agenton Sept ember13, 1992, thathe dec i ded t o l eave C hi na and c om e t o t he U ni t ed St at es notbeca us e of hi s fea r o f p e rse c u tio n b u t b e c a u se th e “ U S is a c a p italist w e ll-d e v e lo p e d c o u n try .” T h e a f f id a v it cont ai ned the ques t i on, “A r e y ou w ant ed i n y ourcountr yoranyot hercountr ybythe pol i ce oranyot hergovernm entagenc y ?, ” t o w hi ch Y uang ans w er ed, “N o. ” ( Supp. J oi nt A p p x . at 42 7 ). Y u an g ti m elyap p ea led th e d ec isi o n an d , o n N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 , the B o ard aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on. T he B oar d adopt ed the I J ’ s r at i onal e i n i t s opi ni on, not i ng 2T o q u a lifyf o r re lief u n d e r th e C A T , the p e tit io n e r h a s th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g “ th a t it 3 is m o re lik e lyth a n n o t th a t [ h e o r] s h e w ill b e to rtu re d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r w ith its acqui es cenc e upon r emoval t o a part i cul arcountr y . ” C hen v. G onzal es , 434 F. 3d 212, 216 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he r egul at i ons defi ne t or tur e as “an e xtr eme for m of cruel and inh u m an tr ea tm en t. ” 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 8 (a)(2). 4 thatY uang fa i l ed t o s at i s fyhi s bur dens of pr oof and pe r s uas i on t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i t yfor as y l um and w i t hhol di ng of exc l us i on and deport at i on. Y uang di d notfi l e an appeal of the B oar d’ s deci s i on, buti ns t ead f i l ed a mot i on t o r eopen e xcl us i on pr ocee di ngs underthe C A T on February20, 2001. O n J ul y20, 2001, the B oar d r eopene d and r emanded Y uang’ s cas e s peci fi cal l yforcons i der at i on of r el i ef r el at i ve t o t he C A T cl ai m . Y uang d id n o t ap p e a l th e B o a rd ’s N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 , d e c isio n a n d th e B o a rd sp e c if ica lly r emanded “fort he s ol e purpos e of de t erm i ni ng w hetheri ti s ‘ m or e l i kel ythan not ’ thatt he a p p lica n t f

a c e s to rtu re if

h e is re tu rn e d to C h in a b e c a u se h e d e p a rte d th e c o u n tryill e g a lly an d w ith the a id o f a sm u g g ler. ” (A p p x . V o l. 1 at 29 4 -95 ). O n Ju ly2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , IJ H o n ey m an h eld th at Y u an g “h as n o t pro v en that itis m o re l i kel yt han nott hathe w oul d be t or tur ed byoratthe i ns t i gat i on of orw i t h t he cons entor acqui es cenc e of a publ i c off i ci al orot herper s on act i ng i n an off i ci al capa ci t yforthe governm entof the Peopl e’ s R epubl i c of Chi na. ” ( I d. at50) . T he I J not ed thatY uang f a iled to sa tisf

yth e re q u ire m e n ts f

o r re lief u n d e r th e C A T . Y u a n g tes tifie d th a t h e w o u ld 3 be as s es s ed a l ar ge fi ne forvi ol at i ng C hi na’ s tr avel contr ol pol i ci es byi l l egal l yfl eei ng the country . N evert hel es s , t he I J found no evi dence t o s uppor tthe al l egat i ons thatany m i s tr eatm entY uang mayexper i ence i f deport ed t o C hi na w oul d qual i fyas “t or tur e”5

underthe C A T . O n O ct ober14, 2005, the B oar d aff i r m ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i t hout w r i t i ng a s epar at e opi ni on. II. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p ea ls. S ee 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 ; Po n ce -L ev ia v. A sh cro ft, 3 3 1 F . 3 d 3 6 9 , 3 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). III . T he i s s ue bef

or e thi s C our ti s w hethers ubs t ant i al evi dence exi s t s t o s uppor tthe B oar d’ s aff

i r m ance of the I J ’ s deni al of Y uang’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um , w i t hhol di ng r e mov a l , a n d p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rt h e CA T. If the B o ard issue s a se p ara te op inion as itd id o n N o v em b er 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 , this C o u rt r evi ew s the fi nal deci s i on of the B oar d. See A bdul ai v. A s hcr oft , 239 F. 3d 542, 548- 49 & n .2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). If

th e B o a rd a f

f irm s th e IJ’ s d e c isio n w ith o u t a s e p a ra te o p in io n , as it di d on O ct ober14, 2005, t hi s C our tr evi ew s the I J ’ s deci s i on as the fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve o rde r. S ee D ia v. A sh cro ft, 3 5 3 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 4 -45 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )( en banc ).

“ [ A ]d m in istra tiv e f

in d in g s o f

f a c t ar e c o n c lu siv e u n les s a n yre a so n a b le a d ju d ica to r w o u ld be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary. . . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( B ) . T hi s C our tm ay notdi s turb t he admi ni s t r at i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctunl es s anyr eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d be compel l ed t o concl ude t o t he contr ary . See I N S v. E l i as - Z aca r i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481 ( 1992) . “A dver s e cr edi bi l i t ydet erm i nat i ons bas ed on s pecul at i on orconj ectur e, r ather6

th a n o n e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd , are re v e rsib le.” G a o , 2 9 9 F .3 d a t 2 7 2 . T h is C o u rt sh o u ld d e f e r to th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n u n les s s u c h f in d in g s “ a re n o t re a so n a b ly gr ounded i n t he r ecor d. ” D i a, 353 F. 3d at249. T o be el i gi bl e foras y l um , t he Secr et aryof H om el and Secur i t yorthe A t t orney G e n e ra l m u s t d e te rm in e th a t th e a lie n q u a lif ie s a s a “ re f

u g e e .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )( 1 )( A ). “R ef u g ee ” is d ef

ined as “ an yp erso n w h o is ou tsi d e a n yco u n tryo f su ch p erso n ’s nat i onal i ty. . . w ho i s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o r eturn t o . . . thatcountr ybeca us e of p e r s e c u t i o n o ra w e l l - f

o u n d e d f e a ro f p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l 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. ” § 1101( a) ( 42) ( A ) . T he al i en has the bur den of pr ovi di ng bot h s ubj ect i ve and obj ect i ve evi dence t o s uppor t“a w el l - founded f

earof futur e per s ecut i on. ” G ao, 299 F. 3d at272. W i thhol di ng of deport at i on i s avai l abl e under8 U . S. C . § 1231( b) ( 3) ( A ) “i f the A t t orneyG ener al deci des t hatt he al i en’ s l i fe orfr eedom w oul d be thr eat ened i n t hat countrybeca us e of the al i en’ s r ace , r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y , m ember s hi p i n a part i cul ars oci al gr oup, orpol i t i cal opi ni on. ” The al i en musts how thati ti s “more l i kel ythan not ” thathe w i l l be pe r s e c ut e d u po n r e turn t o h i s ho me c ou ntr y . I N S v. Car do z a - Fon s e c a , 48 0 U. S. 4 2 1 , 4 2 3 (19 8 7 ); see also 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b)(2 ). T h e a li en m u st sati sfya m o re strin g e n t sta n d a rd to q u a lifyf o r w ith h o ld in g o f

d e p o rta tio n th a n to d e m o n stra te e lig ib ili ty foras y l um ; t her efor e, i f the al i en’ s appl i cat i on foras y l um i s deni ed, he w oul d notqual i fy fo r w ith h o lding o f d ep o rt ati o n . Jan u siak v . IN S , 9 4 7 F . 2 d 4 6 , 4 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ).7

A r t i cl e 3 of the C A T , t o w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es beca m e a s i gnat oryi n 1999, s t at es th a t “[ n ]o S tate P a rtysh a ll ex p e l, retu rn (‘re f o u ler ’) o r e x tra d ite a p e rso n to a n o th e r S tate w her e ther e ar e s ubs t ant i al gr ounds forbel i evi ng thathe w oul d be i n dangerof bei ng s ubj ect ed t o t or tur e. ” The al i en bea r s the bur den of pr ovi ng that“i ti s m or e l i kel ythan notthat[he or ] s he w i l l be t or tur ed bythe governm entorw i t h i t s acqui es cenc e upon r emoval t o a part i cul arcountr y . ” C hen, 434 F. 3d at216. T he al i en has the bur den of s uppor t i ng hi s cl ai m t hr ough cr edi bl e t es t i m ony . G hebr ehi w otv. A t t orneyG en. , 467 F. 3d 3 4 4 , 3 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A f ter re v iew in g th e re c o rd , this C o u rt is sa tisif ied th a t th e IJ’ s c re d ib ili ty det erm i nat i on on w hi ch i tbas ed i t s deci s i on t o denyY uang’ s as y l um appl i cat i on and w i thhol di ng of r emoval i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and i s r eas onabl ygr ounded i n the r ecor d. F ir st, Y u an g m ad e n o m en ti o n o f a fe ar o f p erse cu ti o n o r t o rtu re in h is sw o rn a f f id a v it t a k e n b ya n IN S a g e n t o n S e p tem b e r 1 3 , 1 9 9 2 . R a th e r, h e sta ted th a t h e c a m e to th e U n ite d S ta te s b e c a u s e th e “ U .S . is a c a p ita lis t w e ll- d e v e lo p e d c o u n tr y .” In a d d iti o n , Y u a n g a rg u e s th a t h e f e a rs th a t C h in e se o f

f icia ls w ill f

o rc e h im to under go s t er i l i zat i on upon hi s r etur n t o C hi na. H ow ever , thi s ar gum enti s underm i ned by th e f a c tt h a tt h e g o v e r n me n tc o u l d h a v e s t e r i l i z e d h i m d u r i n g h i s a l l e g e d c u s t o d yo f two m onths , butdi d notdo s o. Fi nal l y , Y uang’ s t es t i m onyatthe hea r i ng on N ovember22, 1994, cont ai nedY uang di d notpr ovi de anynot i ces orarr es tw arr ant s r el at ed t o hi s cl ai m of 4 p erse cu ti o n fo r vio lat ion o f th e C h ines e trav el po li cies, bu t st ated that h is fea rs w ere b a s e d o n s p e c u la tio n a n d ru m o rs . s ever al i ncons i s t enci es r el at ed t o t he l ength of hi s al l eged de t ent i on and the numberof chil dren he has. H i s t est i m on ycon cerni ng his escape from the all eged detent i on w as al so in c o n sis ten t w ith h is s w o rn a f f id a v it. T hi s C our ti s al s o s at i s fi ed thatY uang fa i l ed t o pr ove thati tw as m or e l i kel ythan notthathe w oul d be t or tur ed upon r eturn t o C hi na, a r equi r ementforpr ot ect i on undert he C A T . Y uang t es t i fi ed att he J ul y29, 2004, hear i ng thathe fa ced a fi ne and de t ent i on upon r etur n. E ven as s um i ng t he t es t i m onyi s ful l ycr edi bl e, s uch puni s hm entdoes not 4 r i s e t o the l evel of t or tur e as defi ned i n t he C A T . See W ang v. A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 347, 350- 51 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . Pot ent i al fi nes and i m pr i s onm entforvi ol at i on of C hi na’ s tr avel p o l i c i e s d o n o tq u a l i f

ya s a n e x t r e me f

o r m o f c ru e l a n d i n h u ma n tr e a t me n tth a tth e CA T w as d esig n ed to p rev en t. S ee S ev o ian v . A sh cro ft, 2 9 0 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I V. Fort he r eas ons s etfor t h above, the Pet i t i on forR evi ew i s deni ed.

8