Zhao Lin Chen v. Holder
| Decision Date | 02 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12-1596,12-1596 |
| Parties | ZHAO LIN CHEN, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
UNPUBLISHED
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Davis authored a dissenting opinion.
Adedayo O Idowu, LAW OFFICES OF ADEDAYO O IDOWU, PLLC, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Jennifer R. Khouri, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Zhao Lin Chen, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("the Board") dismissing his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge ("IJ") denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA"), and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition for review because we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision.
In late 2008, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") issued a Notice to Appear to Chen charging him with removability as an alien having entered the United States at an unknown time and place without inspection. Chen conceded removability, but sought relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.
In his application and during the proceedings before the IJ, Chen testified to the following: He was born in 1983, is not married, and does not have any children. In 2003, he brokeup with his girlfriend and became depressed.1 Shortly thereafter, a friend introduced him to Christianity, and Chen began to attend church. The church was not in a fixed location and congregants met in secret for fear of discovery, "gather[ing] in [their] different members' homes." (J.A. 115.) In May 2007, Chen was baptized.
Chen recounted that on the evening of November 4, 2007, he and other congregants were meeting at his friend's house when police officers "rushed into [their] gathering place, tor[e] out [their] Bible[s] and destroyed things at [his friend's] home arbitrarily." (J.A. 309.) Chen and the other congregants were taken to the police station and interrogated. Chen refused to answer the officers' questions and was "kicked and punched" several times.2 (J.A. 89.) After four days, Chen's parents were able to collect enough money to secure his release. Before leaving the police station, Chen was required to sign aguarantee letter stating that he would not participate in underground church activities in the future. When Chen's employer was notified that he was involved in an underground church, and had been "disturbing social order," Chen lost his job for "tarnish[ing] the reputation of the company." (J.A. 101.)
Based on the events of November 4, Chen decided to leave China. His parents borrowed money from friends and relatives in order to pay a snakehead a $75,000 fee to smuggle Chen into the United States.3 Chen testified that he feared that if he returned to China he would be persecuted for his Christian faith.
Chen indicated that since arriving in the United States in January 2008, he had been working in Chinese restaurants, first in New York and now in Virginia. He sends the money earned to China to help pay off the debt his parents owe as a result of borrowing money to pay the snakehead. Chen stated that he had attended church in New York, but that he had not found a Chinese-speaking church in Virginia and that he did not have a vehicle to help him locate a church.
Chen's aunt testified in support of Chen's application. She stated that she met up with Chen after his arrival in New York, and that Chen told her he had fled after being persecuted for his faith. She was aware that Chen continued to practice Christianity and attend church activities, having observed religious pamphlets in his residence and photographs of him participating in religious events.
In addition, Chen submitted an affidavit from his mother stating that Chen had been arrested in China for being a Christian. She stated that she was aware of his underground church activities, had observed that he was thinner and bruised after having been detained by the police in November 2007, and that she and Chen's father had secured his release by paying money to the police. She also stated that she put some liquid medicine on Chen's body to treat his injuries from the detention. Chen's mother also corroborated that Chen had been dismissed from his employment in China because of his participation in the underground church.
Chen also submitted an affidavit from the friend who had introduced him to Christianity and invited him to participate in the church. The friend stated that Chen had been baptized in May 2007, participated in church activities, and was present at the home church meeting in November 2007 when police arrested the congregants. The friend's testimony echoed Chen's withrespect to the police destroying items at the home, taking Bibles from congregants, and detaining them at a police station. The friend stated that he was detained for a month, at which time he was also required to sign a guarantee stating that he would not participate in underground church activities in the future. The friend also stated that the Chinese government still wanted to arrest Chen.
Lastly, Chen introduced the U.S. State Department's 2009 International Religious Freedom Report for China, which referred to the Chinese government's sanctioning and close-monitoring of underground, unauthorized churches. The report notes that in some regions, police disrupt house meetings, detain congregants, and interrogate individuals about their participation in home churches.
The IJ denied Chen the relief requested. In recounting the evidence summarized above, the IJ noted that Chen's testimony was "very general" and "gave very few details as to" his church activities in China and the circumstances surrounding his November 4 arrest, subsequent detention, and interrogation. (J.A. 43, 46.) The IJ concluded, in sum, "that [Chen's] testimony itself was not specific and detailed, nor was the corroborating evidence specific and detailed, as required under the REAL ID Act, in the absence of the respondent's testimony being specific and detailed." (J.A. 47.) "Accordingly," the IJfound that Chen "ha[d] not met his burden of proof to show that whatever may have occurred to him was such as to have constituted past persecution, or even to show that [Chen] has some reasonable possibility of future persecution." (J.A. 47.) The IJ next observed that "the REAL ID Act also speaks to the credibility of a respondent's testimony," and concluded that as a whole, the "general nature" of Chen's testimony and documentation led to the conclusion that Chen was not credible. (J.A. 47-48.) For these reasons the IJ found that Chen had not met his burden of showing eligibility for asylum, or the more substantial burden of demonstrating entitlement for withholding of removal under the INA, and that Chen had not satisfied the requirements for relief under the CAT.
Chen appealed that decision to the Board, arguing that the IJ failed to provide an adequate explanation for the determinations that Chen had failed to provide sufficiently specific and detailed testimony, that he was not credible, and that his corroborating evidence was not sufficient to independently satisfy his burdens. The Board concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ's decision and, in particular, noted:
Contrary to [Chen's] arguments on appeal, the [IJ], before making his adverse credibility finding, identified his particular concerns with the testimony of the respondent and his witness as well as the documentary evidence submitted below. Specificallythe [IJ] provided particular examples of the general nature and the missing details from the testimony of both [Chen] and [his aunt]. He also described specific problems with the vagueness of the documentary evidence and identified missing information before determining that [Chen] did not independently establish his claim on the basis of the corroborating evidence. The [IJ] appropriately made his credibility determination based on the totality of the circumstances and, specifically, on his determination that neither the testimony nor the corroborating evidence were specific and detailed.
(J.A. 3.) The Board observed that the IJ had "considered the limited documentary evidence in conjunction with [Chen's] incredible testimony in determining that he had not met his burden of proof." (J.A. 4.) Because the Board concluded that the IJ "correctly determined that the respondent had not met his burden to demonstrate eligibility for asylum," it also recognized that Chen could not satisfy the more stringent standard required for withholding for removal. (J.A. 4.) The Board also held that Chen had failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to China and therefore was ineligible for relief under the CAT. Accordingly, the Board dismissed Chen's appeal.
Chen filed a timely petition for review in this Court, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
Our review of the Board's decision is highly deferential, affording broad—but not absolute—deference to the agency's disposition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)-(D); see also Haoua v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 2007). We uphold the denial of an asylum claim "unless such a denial is 'manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.'" Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159, 165 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D)).
When the denial of asylum...
To continue reading
Request your trial