Filed: Jul. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IMG-243 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 09-4159 _ XIU YUE YAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent _ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A99-023-380) Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry S. Dogin _ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 1, 2010 Before: SCIRICA, SMITH AND WEIS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 02, 2010) _ OPINION _ PER CURIAM Xiu Yue Yan seeks review of
Summary: IMG-243 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 09-4159 _ XIU YUE YAN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent _ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A99-023-380) Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry S. Dogin _ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 1, 2010 Before: SCIRICA, SMITH AND WEIS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 02, 2010) _ OPINION _ PER CURIAM Xiu Yue Yan seeks review of a..
More
IMG-243 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4159
___________
XIU YUE YAN,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
___________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A99-023-380)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Henry S. Dogin
____________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 1, 2010
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH AND WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 02, 2010)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Xiu Yue Yan seeks review of a final order of removal. For the reasons that
follow, we will deny the petition for review.
1
I.
Petitioner Xiu Yue Yan, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, entered the United States at O’Hare International Airport, in Chicago, Illinois, in
September 2005, and conceded that he was removable. She sought asylum, withholding
of removal, and CAT relief, predicated on her past persecution and fear of persecution
based on her practice of Falun Gong. Yan testified that her parents were Falun Gong
practitioners. In 2001, the police came to her family’s home, looking for her parents, who
were not home. Yan asserts that she was “harassed” and “threatened,” and that the police
returned every few days. Her parents did not return until 2004. Shortly thereafter, the
police returned to the house, but her parents had already left. The police took Yan into
custody and interrogated her for two days.
Yan states that she began practicing Falun Gong in 2005. Her cousin, a
mailman in a government office, discovered that the police planned to arrest Yan. He
warned her, and she arranged to leave China. She has continued to practice Falun Gong
while in the United States. She testified that her uncle has told her that the police are still
looking for her and that she will be arrested as a Falun Gong practitioner if she returns to
China.
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied relief, finding that Yan was not
credible, and that in any event she had not demonstrated past or future persecution, or past
or future torture. The IJ questioned the probative value of her uncle’s unsworn
2
statement1 , and discounted an affidavit from Yan’s friend that attested to Yan’s
continuing practice of Falun Gong in the United States.2 The IJ also took fault with
Yan’s failure to produce any corroborating evidence from her cousin or any of her four
siblings, who still live in China, regarding the police activity at the family home, or any
documentation supporting her claim that she was held in police custody for two days in
2004. The IJ did not believe her claim that she had been arrested, and concluded that
even if she had been, she was “not harmed and was not physically beaten,” and her
experience did not rise to the level of persecution. (A.R. 54.) The IJ also determined that
Yan had failed to support her claim that she is a current Falun Gong practitioner.
The IJ considered Yan’s sworn statement at the airport upon entering the
country in 2005. The IJ noted that she was questioned in her own language, and that she
acknowledged that she understood each question. Yan stated that her parents were being
sought by the police for their Falun Gong activities, and that she came to the United
States because she was looking for a job and because the police wanted to arrest her
parents. She denied practicing Falun Gong herself, and denied that the police wanted to
arrest her. Yan later testified that her airport statement was false, and that she had merely
1
The uncle’s statement recounts the police activity at Yan’s family’s home in 2001
and 2004. However, he does not say that the police are still currently searching for Yan,
nor does he explain how he knows the information contained in his statement.
2
The friend states in her affidavit that she knew that Yan’s family was persecuted in
China due to their Falun Gong activities. She does not say that Yan herself practiced
Falun Gong activities in China, nor does she explain how she knows the information.
The affiant, an asylee living in Flushing, did not appear before the IJ to testify.
3
followed the “snakehead’s” instructions to deny being a Falun Gong practitioner. Based
upon the airport statement and the lack of other corroborating evidence, the IJ did not
believe Yan had ever practiced Falun Gong in China, and concluded that any threats of
arrest due to her refusal or inability to reveal the whereabouts of her parents did not rise
to the level of persecution.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) agreed with the IJ’s
conclusions and affirmed, finding that Yan had not met her burden of proof under any of
the applicable standards. Yan filed a timely petition for review.
II.
We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1). See Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2001).
“Because the [BIA] implicitly adopted the findings of the Immigration Judge while
discussing the IJ’s conclusions, we review the decisions of both the [BIA] and the IJ.”
Issiaka v. Att’y Gen.,
569 F.3d 135, 137 (3d Cir. 2009). We review factual findings,
including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence, see Butt v.
Gonzales,
429 F.3d 430, 433 (3d Cir. 2005), upholding them “unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
see also Dia v. Ashcroft,
353 F.3d 228, 262 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc). Because Yan filed
her asylum application after the enactment of the REAL ID Act, the inconsistencies,
inaccuracies, or falsehoods upon which the adverse credibility finding is based need not
4
go to the heart of her claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Lin v. Att’y Gen., 543
F.3d 114, 119 n.5 (3d Cir. 2008). Rather, the REAL ID Act permits credibility
determinations to be based on observations of her demeanor, the plausibility of her story
and on the consistency of her statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
III.
Yan first claims that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by
substantial evidence. She argues that the IJ’s determination is problematic because the IJ
relied solely on inconsistencies between her airport interview and her presentation at her
removal hearing. See Fiadjoe v. Att’y Gen., 411 F.3d 135, 159 (3d Cir. 2005)
(inconsistencies between airport interviews and testimony before an IJ are insufficient to
support an adverse credibility finding). The BIA agreed with the IJ that Yan’s
explanation for the discrepancies was unconvincing, and properly concluded that the
reliability concerns about airport interviews were not present in Yan’s case. See
id. at
159 (“Such an interview is likely to be hurried; language difficulties arise; the results may
be inaccurately recorded, and an arriving alien who has suffered abuse in his home
country may be reluctant to reveal full information in his or her first meeting with the
government.”); see also Xie v. Ashcroft,
359 F.3d 239, 246 (3d Cir. 2004).
Moreover, the IJ and BIA did not rely on Yan’s inconsistent statements
alone. Yan’s two supporting documents–statements from an uncle in China and a friend
in New York–were insufficiently substantiated and were discounted. The IJ noted that
5
because Yan’s claims were suspect, she was required to support her claims with
corroborating evidence. See Abdulai, 239 F.3d at 551-52. Yan argues that statements
from her siblings in China would have been duplicative of her other evidence, and that it
was too dangerous for her cousin, a government employee, to provide an affidavit.
Nevertheless, the statements Yan did provide were of questionable probative value. We
find that the BIA reasonably relied on Yan’s lack of corroborating evidence, including
statements from her siblings and fellow Falun Gong practitioners in the United States.
Yan next argues that the IJ and BIA erred in finding that she had failed to
meet her burden of proof. “[P]ersecution connotes extreme behavior, including ‘threats
to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a
threat to life or freedom.’” Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 214, 217 (3d Cir. 2003). The
BIA determined that Yan’s account of the problems stemming from her parents’ Falun
Gong activities–the repeated police visits and the two days of custodial
interrogation–even if credible, do not establish past persecution. The BIA is correct that
such harm and threats of harm do not rise to the level of persecution. See Voci v.
Gonzales,
409 F.3d 607, 614-15 (3d Cir. 2005) (persecution does not include “isolated
incidents that do not result in serious injury”). Accordingly, Yan has not met her burden
of proof for asylum relief.
As Yan has failed to meet the burden for asylum, she fails to meet the
higher burden for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). See Lukwago v.
6
Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 182 (3d Cir. 2003). Likewise, the record does not support her
claim for CAT protection. See
id. at 182-83. Accordingly, the BIA properly denied CAT
relief.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
7
