Wang v. Attorney General of United States, 011608 FED3, 06-3432

Docket Nº:06-3432
Party Name:LI TAO WANG; XIU YUN SHI, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED SATES, Respondent
Case Date:January 16, 2008
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

LI TAO WANG; XIU YUN SHI, Petitioners

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED SATES, Respondent

No. 06-3432

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

January 16, 2008

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 11, 2008

On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board Nos. A77-293-178 & A78-712-276) Immigration Judge: Honorable Rosalind K. Malloy

Before: FISHER, HARDIMAN and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Li Tao Wang and his wife, Xiu Yun Shi, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding Wang ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and finding Shi ineligible for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT.

I.

Petitioners are citizens of the People's Republic of China. Wang entered the United States on April 12, 2000 without a valid entry document and was placed in removal proceedings. He timely submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in July of 2000. Shi alleged that she entered the United States in July 2000 via Canada and submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in October 2000.

Immigration Judge (IJ) Rosalind K. Malloy denied petitioners' requests for relief. The IJ found Shi statutorily ineligible for asylum because she did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she applied within one year of her arrival. The IJ also denied the petitioners' remaining claims for relief, finding their testimony incredible and their applications frivolous.

On appeal, the BIA: (1) affirmed the IJ's decision that Shi was statutorily ineligible for asylum; (2) upheld the IJ's finding that the petitioners had testified incredibly; and (3) rejected the IJ's finding that the applications were frivolous.

II.

Petitioners claim that they suffered persecution under China's national family planning policy and that they fear future persecution if they are forced to return to China. At an evidentiary hearing before the IJ, Shi testified that she was required to wear an intrauterine device (IUD) after the birth of her first child in July 1994. Shi indicated that she wore the IUD for four years, undergoing routine check-ups four times each year. She...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP