Opinion ID: 59637
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Asylum Hearing on January 12, 2006

Text: At the asylum hearing on January 12, 2006, Xie testified that he had lived in China until May 2004 with his parents at 54 Xiean Village, Chengmen township, Foochow City, Fujian Province, China. According to Xie, in February 2004, the government took property from 200 families in his village to build a manufacturing plant and paid Xie’s family 10,000 yuan for the property. Xie visited the local government office to request greater compensation. When the official on duty informed him that the “‘[g]overnment decision is [the] government decision,’” Xie 4 hit the desk, resulting in security hitting him twice with a police stick and throwing him out. Xie testified that on March 15, 2004, he traveled 36 hours by train to Beijing to appeal to the central government. Xie walked around Tiananmen Square, holding a piece of cloth which stated that the government was unfair and the citizens needed human rights. After thirty minutes, the police arrested him. At the detention center, the police hit Xie and asked why he was making trouble “‘for the government in Beijing.’” Xie explained about the unfair compensation for his property, and the police told him that he should return home because it was a local government decision. Before releasing him, the police asked Xie to sign a statement admitting that he made trouble for the government. When Xie refused to sign the statement, the police responded by pouring boiling water onto his feet. Xie testified that he was held in Beijing for 15 days, during which time he was beaten, burned with cigarettes, and denied food. After his release, Xie returned to his village and organized a protest. The protesters displayed banners and shouted slogans. According to Xie, the police intervened within ten minutes of the protest’s start. Xie escaped to his cousin’s home. When the IJ asked why Xie’s neighbor Fa Dong Xie had written that the protest continued for two hours before police arrived, Xie said that Fa Dong Xie had made a mistake. According to Xie, the police issued a warrant for his arrest, 5 beat his parents and destroyed their house. Xie’s parents borrowed $40,000 to pay a “snakehead” to smuggle Xie out of China. Using a fake Japanese passport, Xie traveled from Hong Kong to France in May 2004. Xie stayed in France for several months before flying to the United States. Xie testified that his intention all along was to travel to the United States because he believed the United States would provide him with protection. He destroyed his fake passport on the US-bound plane. Xie admitted that he had not attempted to obtain a Chinese passport. On cross-examination, Xie acknowledged that his parents and Fa Dong Xie, his neighbor and fellow protestor, continued to live in the same village. Xie explained that his father was using the same mailing address of the destroyed house even though his parents were living in a different house. When asked why his asylum application had not reported the cigarette burning and beatings in Beijing or his parents’ beating, Xie said that he did not want to talk about those incidents at the time, but wanted to talk about them before the judge. The IJ noted a discrepancy in the number on Xie’s father’s identification card, which was attached to his letter, and the number listed for Xie’s father in the household register.1 1 The household register listed Xie’s father’s identification card number as 350111195509270415. Xie’s father’s identification card contained the number 350111550927041. 6 D. Decisions of the IJ and BIA The IJ denied Xie’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, and ordered Xie removed to China. The IJ found that Xie had not shown past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ also found that Xie’s “testimony simply ha[d] not been sufficiently credible . . . to find that [Xie] met his burden of proof.” The IJ noted these discrepancies in the evidence: (1) Xie was unwilling to provide basic information upon his arrival at the airport despite his claim that he sought asylum in the United States, and not other countries, because the United States respected human rights; (2) his asylum application stated that he left China in September 2004 but he testified that he left in May 2004; (3) Xie’s father continued to use the address from the family home that Xie claimed was destroyed when police sought to arrest Xie; (4) although Xie claimed his parents could not survive on the 10,000 yuan offered for their land, his parents were able to pay “substantially more” money in United States dollars to have Xie smuggled into the United States; (5) Xie testified that Beijing police beat him in Tiananmen Square before taking him to the police station, but his asylum application did not mention this incident; (6) Fa Dong Xie wrote that the community-wide protest lasted for two hours, while Xie testified that it lasted for ten minutes; and (7) there was a discrepancy between Xie’s father’s 7 identification number on the household register and on his father’s identification card. The IJ found that due to the widespread fabrication of documents in China, as reported by the State Department, there were no documents that the court could rely upon to establish Xie’s identity, further diminishing his entitlement to asylum. The IJ noted that Xie had not tendered an official document from the Chinese embassy or consulate or a passport from China and had not explained why he could not obtain one. Alternatively, the IJ concluded that Xie had failed to show a nexus between the alleged persecution or feared future persecution and a statutorily protected ground. Xie appealed to the BIA. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. The BIA also noted that it was not persuaded that the IJ’s credibility finding was clearly erroneous. Xie petitioned this Court for review.