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 2-4-2009 

# Ming Zhe ng 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 . 08-2244

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 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 " Min g Zhe n g v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1923. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/19231 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. 08- 2244

___________ M I NG C HUN Z HE NG,

Pet i t i oner vs. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ 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 79- 682- 679) Im m i grat i on Judg e: H on orabl e D on al d F erl i se

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

February2, 2009 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

(O p inion fil ed : Fe b rua ry4 , 2 0 0 9 )

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

M i ng C hun Z heng pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the dec i s i on bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) deny i ng hi m as y l um , w i thhol di ng of r emoval and r el i ef u n d e r th e U n ited N a tio n s C o n v e n tio n A g a in st T o rtu re (“ C A T ” ), an d o rd e rin g h imSpeci fi cal l y , the I J found that“the arr es tand det ent i on of the r es pondent 1 fora fe w day s does not , i n t he cons i der ed opi ni on of thi s C our t , r ai s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. ” The I J s t at ed that“[t ] he pr ofi l e of a s y l um cl ai m s and countrycondi t i ons author ed bythe St at e D epart m entr efl ect s thatunr egi s t er ed r el i gi ous gr oups i n C hi na exper i ence di ffe r entdegr ees of off i ci al i nt er fer ence and har as s m entw i th the degr ee of re stric tio n v a ry in g sig n if ica n tlyf ro m o n e re g io n to th e o th e r. F ro m re a d in g th e S tate D e p a rtm e n t re p o rts a n d b a se d o n th e re sp o n d e n t’s te stim o n ya s to w h a t h a p p e n e d to h im w hen he w as arr es t ed bythe ca dr es i tdoes notappea rthatthe har as s m enti n the ar ea w her e the r es pondentl i ves w i th r egar d t o the under gr ound chur ches r ai s es t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. A nd cons equent l y , even i f I found the r es pondentcr edi bl e, I w oul d notfi nd th a t h e h a d a w e ll- f

o u n d e d f e a r o f p e rs e c u tio n if

h e re tu rn e d to C h in a .” 2 r emoved t o C hi na. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.

W e s etfor th t he under l y i ng fac t s i n ourear l i erdeci s i on gr ant i ng the pet i t i on f o rr e v i e w i n th i s c a s e a n d , th u s , we s u mm a r i z e o n l yth e p e rt i n e n tp r o c e d u r a l h i s t o ry . On J une 25, 2007, w e gr ant ed Zheng’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew , hol di ng thatthe I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) adver s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons w er e nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . Z heng v. A t t orneyG ener al , N o. 06- 2751, s l i p. op. at7- 12, 2007 W L 1805598, at* 4 ( 3d C i r . J un. 25, 2007) . W e r emanded the mat t ert o the B I A t o det erm i ne w hether Z h en g h ad sh o w n that h e su ff ere d p ast p erse cu ti o n o r ha d a w ell -fo u n d ed fe ar o f f u ture per s ecut i on i f he w as r eturned t o C hi na.

O n r emand, the B I A vaca t ed the I J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyand fr i vol ous appl i cat i on fi ndi ngs and di s m i s s ed the appe al . T he B I A uphel d the I J ’ s al t ernat e fi ndi ng that, assum i ng the credibi l i tyof h i s t est i m on y , Z hen g fail ed to dem on strat e past per s ecut i on orthathe hel d a pl aus i bl e fe arof futur e per s ecut i on bas ed on hi s part i ci pat i on i n 2 00 1 in an un dergroun d, un regi st ered chu rch i n C hina. W i th regard t o p ast 13

per s ecut i on, the B I A not ed thatthe 2004 C ountryR eporti ndi cat ed thatC hi na’ s hum an ri g h ts re c o rd w a s p o o r w ith re s p e c t to p a rt ic ip a n ts in u n d e rg ro u n d , u n re g is te re d c h u rc h e s . T he B I A s t at ed, how ever , thatZ heng’ s arr es tand bei ng “hi ta fe w t i m es ” bypol i ce dur i ng hi s det ai nm entfora fe w day s , and hi s narr ow es cape fr om arr es tupon hi s att endanc e at an under gr ound chur ch s es s i on a s hor tt i m e l at er , “do notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on” butw er e “mor e i n t he natur e of ha r as s m ent , al bei theavy - handed ha r as s m ent , i n t erm s of hi s tr eatm entbypol i ce. ” The B I A al s o concl uded thateven i f Zheng’ s s ubj ect i ve fe arof per s ecut i on bas ed on hi s r el i gi ous bel i efs w as genui ne, “he ha s fai l ed i n hi s bur den of pr ovi ng an obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tyof per s ecut i on [i n the futur e] . ” Zheng fi l ed a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of the B I A unders ect i on 2 4 2 (a )(1 ) o f

th e IN A , 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ). W h e re , as h e re , the B IA e x p re ss lya d o p ts the I J ’ s deci s i on and di s cus s es s om e of the I J ’ s r eas oni ng, w e r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . U ndert he d e f e re n tial su b sta n tial e v id e n c e sta n d a rd f o r re v iew , the B IA ’s f

in d in g s m u st b e u p h e ld unl es s the evi dence notonl ys uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . X i e v. A s h c ro f t, 3 5 9 F .3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o tin g IN A § 2 4 2 (b )( 4 )( B ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (b)(4 )(B )).

I n hol di ng thatZ heng’ s exper i ence s di d notamount t o pas tper s ecut i on, t he B I A ci t ed ourdeci s i on i n Fat i n v. I N S, 12 F. 3d 1233 ( 3d C i r . 1993) , w her e w e def i ned4

persecut i on as “ext rem e con du ct . ” Id. at12 40 n. 10 . Z hen g argue s that hi s past exper i ence s s how thathi s fr eedom t o pr act i ce hi s r el i gi on w as thr eat ened a nd, thus , he m ethi s bur den of s how i ng pas tper s ecut i on s uffi ci entt o w arr antas y l um r el i ef.

T h e q u e stio n h e re is n o t sim p lyw h e th e r Z h e n g ’s f re e d o m to p ra c tice h is r el i gi on i n C hi na w as r es tr i ct ed i n anym anner . I n Fat i n, w e not ed that“the conc eptof per s ecut i on does notencompas s al l tr eatm entthatours oci etyr egar ds as unfai r , unj us tor e v e n u n law f

u l o r u n c o n stitu tio n a l.” Id . at 1 2 4 0 ; se e a lso Ja rb o u g h v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 4 8 3 F .3 d 1 8 4 , 1 9 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (n o tin g th a t “[ a ]b u siv e tre a tm e n t an d h a ra ss m e n t, w h ile a lw a y s d e p lo ra b le, m a yn o t rise to th e lev e l o f p e rse c u tio n ” ). R a th e r, th e q u e stio n is w hetherthe governm ent ’ s conducti n r es tr i ct i ng Z heng’ s fr eedom t o pr act i ce r el i gi on w as s o s ever e orextr eme t hati tamount ed t o per s ecut i on. Z heng mi s t akenl yr el i es on B e sk o v ic v . G o n z a les , 4 6 7 F .3 d 2 2 3 , 2 2 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t h is m i norbeat i ng w i thouti nj urycons t i tut es per s ecut i on beca us e i toccurr ed i n the cont extof an arr es tordet ent i on. W e do notr ecogni ze a s per s ecut i on “i s ol at ed i nci dent s thatdo not resu ltin se ri o u s injury . ” S ee V o ci v. G o n za les, 4 0 9 F . 3 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In C h e n v . A sh c ro f

t, 38 1 F .3 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 4 -3 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), w e h e ld th a t th e B IA re a so n a b ly concl uded thatthe r es pondent ’ s m i norbeat i ng byC hi nes e author i t i es w as nots er i ous enough t o cons t i tut e per s ecut i on, not i ng thatC hen neve ral l eged thathe s uffe r ed i nj ur i es f o r w h ich h e re c e iv e d m e d ica l trea tm e n t.

H e re , the re is n o re c o rd e v id e n c e th a t Z h e n g su f f e re d p e rse c u tio n a s h e d idZ heng’ s cl ai m thatthe B I A ’ s deci s i on w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al 2 ev iden ce b ec au se th e IJ d id n o t con side r pa st pe rsec u ti o n , is m erit less b ec au se th e re co rd c l e a r l yi n d i c a t e s th a tth e I J d i d ma k e a f i n d i n g wi th r e s p e c tt o p a s tp e r s e c u t i o n . S e e A. R. at62. 5 n o t te s tif yth a t h e s u f

f e re d a n ys e ri o u s in

ju ri e s f ro m h is a b u s e b yC h in e s e a u th o ri tie s . N otabl y , he d i d n ot t est i fythat he soug ht m edical treatm ent. H e t est i fi ed thatthe C hinese p o lic e le t h im g o f

ro m d e te n tio n b e c a u s e th e yh a d n o e v id e n c e o f w ro n g d o in g o n h is p a rt . W h ile h e w a s s tayi n g w ith re lativ e s, th e p o lice v isited h is p a re n ts’ h o m e o n c e to u rg e h im t o att end the governm ent - s pons or ed chur ch. H e w as notarr es t ed bythe pol i ce a gai n, even though he di d notfol l ow thei ri ns truct i on t o att end the governm ent - s pons or ed chu rch. T here i s no record evidence thatthe p oli ce l oo ked for hi m athis parent ’s ho use orel s ew her e af

t erhe fl ed, w hi ch s ugges t s thatthe author i t i es di d nots peci fi cal l yt ar get him for persecut i on . A s a r esul t , the B IA ’s con cl usi on that Zh eng fai l ed to show past p e rse c u tio n is a m p lysu p p o rte d b yth e re c o rd . W e c a n n o t sa yth a t an yre a so n a b le a d j u d i c a t o rw o u l d b e c o m p e l l e d t o c o n c l u d e t o th e c o n tr a ry. 2

H a v in g f a iled to sh o w p a st p e rse c u tio n , Z h e n g is n o t en tit led to a re b u ttab le p re s u m p tio n th a t h e h a s a w e ll- f o u n d e d f e a r o f f u tu re p e rs e c u tio n . 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .1 3 (b )(1 ); L u k w a g o v . A sh c ro f t, 32 9 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 7 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). In o rd e r to es t abl i s h a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on, Z heng musts how thathi s fea rof per s ecut i on upon hi s r eturn t o C hi na i s genui ne and i s obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. See A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 496 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A s s um i ng thatZ heng’ s fea rw asg e n u in e , the B IA c o n c lu d e d th a t h is re a so n s f o r f e a rin g p e rse c u tio n u p o n h is re tu rn to C hi na w er e notpl aus i bl e. T he B I A es s ent i al l yagr eed w i th the I J thatw hi l e the 2004 C o u n tryR e p o rt in d ica ted th a t th e a m o u n t o f g o v e rn m e n t re stric tio n a n d re so rt to o p p re ss iv e tac tics to su p p re ss u n d e rg ro u n d c h u rc h g o in g v a rie d w id e lyf ro m re g io n to re g io n , th e c lim a te in th e re g io n w h e re Z h e n g re s id e d w a s n o t g e n e ra lly o p p re s s iv e . T h e re is littl e re c o rd e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e c o n c lu s io n th a t Z h e n g ’s f e a rs a re p la u s ib le . H e di d nott es t i fythatany one el s e i n hi s congr egat i on cont i nued t o be arr es t ed ordet ai ned on acc ountof thei rr el i gi on dur i ng the y ear s thathe w as i n the U ni t ed St at es . H e di d not tes tifyo r p re se n t o th e r c o m p e ten t ev id e n c e th a t th e lo c a l au th o rities a re lo o k in g f o r h im c u rr e n tly o r t h a t th e yw o u ld s e e k to a rr e s t h im o r h a rm h im s h o u ld h e re tu rn to C h in a . T hus , w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al r ecor d evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat Z heng fa i l ed t o s how thathe had a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on. R e ly in g o n th e 2 0 0 7 C o u n tryR e p o rt, Z h e n g a rg u e s th a t th e B IA e rre d in its ru lin g o n th e o b

jec tiv e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is f e a rs. A s th e G o v e rn m e n t co rre c tlyp o in ts o u t, ho w e v e r, th e 2 0 0 7 C o u n tryR e p o rt is n o t p a rt o f th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd o n a p p e a l, and, thus , w e ca nnotcons i deri t . T he 2007 C ountryR eportw oul d have t o be br ought befo re the B IA i n the form of a m oti on t o reope n all eging ch ang ed co un tryci rcum st ances. W e, of cour s e, offe rno appr ai s al of the mer i t s of anys uch mot i on.

Ac c o r d i n g l y , 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. 

### 6