Opinion ID: 213284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jurisdiction, Standard Of Review, And Dong's Burden Of Proof

Text: The BIA had jurisdiction over Dong's appeal from the IJ's determination pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1. We have jurisdiction to review final orders of the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Dong's appeal arises from the BIA's determination; however, we have held that when the BIA has affirmed the IJ's decision, and adopted the analysis as its own, we will review both decisions. See Sandie v. Att'y Gen., 562 F.3d 246, 250 (3d Cir.2009) (Because the IJ's corroboration discussion and determinations are affirmed and partially reiterated in the BIA's decision, we review them along with the BIA decision.). Therefore, we will review the IJ's and BIA's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. Camara v. Att'y Gen., 580 F.3d 196, 201 (3d Cir.2009) (We affirm any findings of fact supported by substantial evidence and are `bound by the administrative findings of fact unless a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to arrive at a contrary conclusion.') (quoting Yan Lan Wu v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418, 421 (3d Cir.2005)). We review the IJ's and BIA's legal determinations de novo. Toussaint v. Att'y Gen., 455 F.3d 409, 413 (3d Cir.2006). If we take issue with the application of law to Dong's case, we will defer to the authority granted an agency by Congress and remand to the BIA for the appropriate consideration. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002). Dong bears the burden of proof in her claim for relief. For Dong to qualify for the discretionary relief of asylum, she must establish that she satisfies the definition of refugee within the meaning established by Section 101(a)(42) of the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). A refugee is defined by the INA as any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality... and who is unable or unwilling to return to ... that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Additionally, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy... shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). Dong can demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing that she has a genuine fear, and that a reasonable person in [her] circumstances would fear persecution upon return to her native country. Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 273 (3d Cir.2002). Her well-founded fear must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable. Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 177 (3d Cir.2003). Dong's subjective fear can be shown through credible testimony that she fears persecution. See Chang v. INS, 119 F.3d 1055, 1066 (3d Cir.1997). Objective reasonableness may be established by, among other things, her own testimony, the testimony of other corroborating witnesses, or submitting evidence regarding conditions in her home country. See id; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a) (The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.). Dong's plea for withholding of removal requires her to establish that, upon returning to her native country, her life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). To receive the grant of withholding, the alien must establish a clear probability (or that it is more likely than not) that the alien would suffer persecution if repatriated. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1); INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984). Unlike asylum, withholding of removal is mandatory rather than discretionary. See Id. at 423, 104 S.Ct. 2489. Dong's final claim arises out of Article III of the CAT, for which relief is available to applicants where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub.L. No. 105-277, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681 (1999); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(1)-(2). Relief under CAT exists in the form of withholding of removal to the country of torture. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(4). CAT claims require the alien to establish that it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. § 208.16(c)(2). In assessing the potential of torture, the IJ must consider all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture, along with evidence of past torture inflicted upon the applicant, and the likelihood that an applicant could relocate to a part of the country of removal where he or she is not likely to be tortured. § 208.16(c)(3).