Guo Shou Wu v. Holder , 741 F.3d 211 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 12-1685
    GUO SHOU WU,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE
    BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
    Before
    Lynch, Chief Judge,
    Torruella and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
    Wei Jia and Law Office of Wei Jia, on brief for petitioner.
    Kristofer R. McDonald, Office of Immigration Litigation,
    Department of Justice, Civil Division, Stuart F. Delery, Principal
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Leslie
    McKay, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on
    brief for respondent.
    December 20, 2013
    TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.        Guo Shou Wu, a native and
    citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an order of an
    Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for relief from
    removal.   For the reasons set forth below, his petition is denied.
    I. Background
    Wu asserted the following facts in support of his claim.
    He is married, and his wife still lives in China.         In accordance
    with China's family planning program, after the birth of their
    first child, Wu's wife received, against her will, an intra-uterine
    device.    Wu and his wife consulted a private doctor and, without
    the consent of family planning officials, had the device removed.
    The couple became pregnant for a second time, and, despite efforts
    to conceal the pregnancy, Wu's wife was subjected by family
    planning officials to a forced abortion.         Wu and his wife then
    moved to a remote area, where she again became pregnant and gave
    birth to their second child.
    When it came time to register their children with the
    government,   over   Wu's   pleas   and   objections,   family   planning
    officials detained and forcibly sterilized his wife as punishment
    for having had an unsanctioned second child.            Family planning
    officials also fined the couple 5000 renminbi.           Thereafter, Wu
    remained in China without incident for nine years, at which point
    -2-
    he illegally departed the country. He illegally entered the United
    States and was charged with removability.
    Appearing   before    an    IJ     in     New    York,    Wu   conceded
    removability but requested relief from removal in the form of
    asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
    Against Torture (CAT).    To be granted asylum, Wu had to show that
    he was unable or unwilling to return to China because had suffered
    past persecution, or had a well founded fear of future persecution,
    on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a
    particular social group, or political opinion.                      See 8 U.S.C.
    §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(A).            To be granted withholding of
    removal, Wu had to show that upon removal to China he would more
    likely than not face future persecution on account of one of those
    bases.   See 
    id. § 1231(b)(3)(A);
    8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2).                 Because
    the "more likely than not" -- or "clear probability" -- standard
    for withholding of removal is more stringent than that for asylum,
    a petitioner unable to satisfy the asylum standard necessarily
    fails the withholding of removal standard as well. See Mediouni v.
    I.N.S., 
    314 F.3d 24
    , 27 (1st Cir. 2002).             To be granted protection
    under CAT, Wu had to show that upon removal to China he would more
    likely than not be tortured.     See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
    Wu's   applications   for        relief   were    denied,      and   Wu's
    subsequent appeal to the BIA was dismissed.                  Wu petitioned the
    Second Circuit for review, but the petition was dismissed in
    -3-
    accordance with a stipulation between the parties to vacate the
    BIA's decision and to remand the matter for a new hearing in which
    an IJ would consider any new evidence in addition to the evidence
    from the previous hearing.
    The matter was assigned to an IJ in Boston.                   The IJ
    discredited Wu's testimony, but went on to address the merits of
    Wu's applications as if he had testified credibly. In that regard,
    the IJ found that Wu failed to establish either past persecution or
    a well founded fear of future persecution, and thus was entitled to
    neither asylum nor, a fortiori, withholding of removal.                   The IJ
    also found that Wu failed to establish a clear probability of
    future torture, and thus was not entitled to protection under CAT.
    On appeal the BIA concluded that Wu's applications for relief were
    governed    by   the    REAL    ID   Act,   which   allows   the   IJ   to    make
    credibility      determinations        "without     regard   to     whether     an
    inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the
    applicant's claim." Pub L. No. 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231
    (codified   at    8    U.S.C.   §    1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).         The   BIA   also
    concluded that Wu failed to demonstrate past persecution, a well
    founded fear of future persecution, or a clear probability of
    future torture, and thus was not entitled to relief from removal.
    Accordingly, the BIA dismissed the appeal. This petition followed.
    -4-
    II. Discussion
    Wu petitions for review on the ground that the BIA erred
    in concluding that (i) the REAL ID Act applied, (ii) Wu failed to
    demonstrate past persecution, and (iii) Wu failed to demonstrate a
    well founded fear of future persecution.1
    A. Standard of Review
    We review the BIA's legal conclusions de novo and its
    factual determinations under the substantial evidence standard.
    Soeung v. Holder, 
    677 F.3d 484
    , 487 (1st Cir. 2012).    Under this
    deferential standard, we must uphold the BIA's determination unless
    the record not only supports, but compels the contrary conclusion.
    López de Hincapié v. Gonzales, 
    494 F.3d 213
    , 218 (1st Cir. 2007).
    B. REAL ID Act
    Wu first asserts, and the Government concedes, that the
    BIA erred in concluding that the REAL ID Act applied to Wu's case.
    The IJ had found that the Act did not apply, and the BIA affirmed
    the IJ's denial of relief.    Nevertheless, the BIA said the Act
    1
    As noted above, the BIA's conclusions that Wu failed to
    demonstrate either past persecution or a well founded fear of
    future persecution allowed the BIA to dispose of both his asylum
    claim and his withholding of removal claim. The BIA also concluded
    that Wu failed to demonstrate a clear probability of torture,
    agreeing with the IJ's finding in this regard and noting that Wu
    did not specifically challenge that finding before the BIA. Wu
    does not appear to specifically challenge that finding before us
    either: While his brief references CAT, he does not argue that any
    future harm he may suffer would rise to the level of torture.
    Thus, we deem his CAT claim waived. See Hana v. Gonzales, 
    503 F.3d 39
    , 43 n.3 (1st Cir. 2007) ("Because this claim is perfunctory and
    unaccompanied by developed argumentation, we deem it waived.").
    -5-
    applied because it believed, mistakenly, that Wu filed his asylum
    application after May 11, 2005.    In fact, Wu filed his application
    in 2002, so the Act does not apply.     See In re S-B-, 24 I. & N.
    Dec. 42, 43 (BIA 2006).
    But Wu does not explain how this error affected his
    case.2   After all, the BIA's order did not depend on any REAL ID
    Act provisions, which, in this context, merely provide a framework
    for the trier of fact to assess credibility, see 
    id. at 42-43.
    Indeed, the BIA assumed the credibility of Wu's testimony, but went
    on to conclude that Wu failed to establish past persecution, a well
    founded fear of future persecution, or a clear probability of
    future torture.   So the error was harmless.   See Jaya v. Gonzales,
    
    169 F. App'x 596
    , 598 (1st Cir. 2005) (invoking harmless error
    doctrine in instance where BIA arguably erred).
    2
    The REAL ID Act applies to applications filed on or after
    May 11, 2005.   See Jabri v. Holder, 
    675 F.3d 20
    , 24 (1st Cir.
    2012). In these cases, "a trier of fact may base an adverse
    credibility determination on any inconsistency in the record that
    has a bearing on the petitioner's veracity, 'without regard to
    whether [the] inconsistency . . . goes to the heart of the
    applicant's claim.'" 
    Id. (alteration and
    omission in original)
    (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). In cases where the
    application was filed before May 11, 2005, however, "an adverse
    credibility determination may not be predicated on inconsistencies
    in an applicant's testimony that do not go to the heart of the
    applicant's claim." Lin v. Mukasey, 
    521 F.3d 22
    , 26 (1st Cir.
    2008).
    -6-
    C. Past Persecution
    Wu next asserts that he is entitled to asylum because he
    was persecuted for resisting China's coercive population control
    program -- that is, he was persecuted on account of his political
    opinion.    Assuming for the sake of argument that Wu demonstrated
    that he had resisted a coercive population control program, the BIA
    nevertheless determined that Wu failed to show that he had been
    persecuted.    We cannot say that the record compels the contrary
    conclusion.
    In his brief, the only example of persecution that Wu
    provides is that he was "deprived of his right, freedom and liberty
    to father additional children with his wife."                    To support the
    proposition    that   this    deprivation     amounts     to   persecution,   Wu
    directs us, not to any controlling authority, but to the Ninth
    Circuit's decision in Jiang v. Holder, 
    611 F.3d 1086
    (9th Cir.
    2010).     But Jiang did not hold that deprivation of the right to
    father children, by itself, amounts to persecution.                 Rather, the
    Ninth Circuit held that the forced abortion or sterilization of a
    noncitizen's    spouse       is   but   one      factor   that    can   indicate
    persecution.    
    Id. at 1095.
        There,     the    noncitizen    "offered
    substantial evidence of additional persecution in support of his
    claim," such as being (i) expelled from school, (ii) detained by
    authorities, (iii) forced to pay a heavy fine to be released from
    detention, (iv) subject to near arrest by police at his home on the
    -7-
    morning of his wedding, and (v) forced to flee his hometown to hide
    from authorities. 
    Id. at 1095-96.
    Here, by contrast, Wu mentions only the deprivation of
    his ability to father more children. And even if we were to add to
    that alleged deprivation the other harms that Wu arguably suffered
    as a result of his resistance, we could not conclude that the
    record compels a finding of past persecution.         True, in 1992, Wu
    was fined 5000 renminbi (which, according to the Government,
    amounts to roughly $800 today) for fathering an unsanctioned second
    child. But economic disadvantage must be severe and deliberate to
    rise to the level of persecution, see Vanchurina v. Holder, 
    619 F.3d 95
    , 99 (1st Cir. 2010); In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 173-
    75 (BIA 2007), and the record does not indicate that the fine
    caused Wu severe economic disadvantage.
    Wu seems to argue that, if we refuse to hold that the
    forced    abortion   and   sterilization   of   his   wife   amounts   to
    persecution of him, we will somehow be punishing individuals like
    his wife, who may plan to follow their spouses in fleeing alleged
    persecution and seeking asylum in the United States.           But this
    argument was never made before the BIA and thus is beyond our
    review.   See Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 
    387 F.3d 75
    , 80 (1st Cir. 2004)
    ("[T]heories not advanced before the BIA may not be surfaced for
    the first time in a petition for judicial review . . . .").
    -8-
    D. Well Founded Fear of Future Persecution
    Finally, Wu claims to have a well founded fear of future
    persecution   in   response   to   either   his   resistance   to   China's
    coercive population control program or his illegal departure.          The
    BIA concluded otherwise, and we cannot say that the record compels
    the contrary conclusion.
    1. Resistance to Coercive Population Control Program
    In rejecting Wu's claim that he has a well founded fear
    of future persecution as a result of his resistance to China's
    coercive population control program, the BIA observed that Wu
    remained in China for nine years without harm after his last
    encounter with family planning officials, which occurred at the
    time of his wife's forced sterilization.            Wu now attacks that
    observation as "ludicrous" and asks what further action could have
    been expected of him. Wu seems to miss the point.        The BIA was not
    chastising Wu for failing to offer further resistance to the
    population control program.        Rather, the BIA was explaining that
    Wu's alleged fear of future persecution for the resistance he did
    offer was not well founded in light of the Chinese government's
    apparent lack of interest in Wu during the nine years between his
    resistance and departure.     Wu's evidence falls short of compelling
    the contrary conclusion.
    Wu points out that the record contains a 2008 State
    Department report that documents the abuse of a prisoner who
    -9-
    protested China's family planning program.     And Wu notes that the
    record also includes testimony of an individual who, in a 1998
    hearing before the House Subcommittee on International Operation
    and Human Rights, expressed fear of returning to China because she
    had violated the one-child policy.      But in light of the fact that
    the record also reflects that Wu lived in China for nearly a decade
    without incident, we cannot say that these sources compel the
    conclusion that Wu has a well founded fear of future harm.     See,
    e.g., Pan v. Gonzales, 
    445 F.3d 60
    , 62 (1st Cir. 2006) (finding no
    well founded fear of persecution where noncitizen "remained in
    China for two and a half years following the [alleged resistance],
    [and] was never punished or persecuted because of her resistance").
    2. Illegal Departure
    Wu claims that he fears future persecution, in the form
    of arrest and loss of income, in response to his illegal departure.
    The BIA concluded that Wu failed to demonstrate either that he was
    likely to be harmed or that any harm he suffered would rise to the
    level of persecution.   Wu says that the IJ failed to comply with
    the Second Circuit's mandate to consider the evidence from Wu's
    prior removal proceedings.    But nothing in the BIA's decision
    indicates that it failed to consider any of Wu's evidence.
    That evidence consists partly of Wu's own testimony.     It
    is true that, at his initial hearing, he said that based on the
    experiences of his relatives and friends in New York, those who
    -10-
    departed China illegally would be fined and imprisoned upon their
    return.     And admittedly, at his remand hearing, Wu reiterated that
    he feared that he would be arrested and sentenced and that his
    family would be harmed physically, emotionally, and financially.
    But   the   record   neither    indicates     that   the    BIA   ignored   Wu's
    testimony, nor compels the conclusion that his fears are well
    founded or that any future harm would amount to persecution.
    As Wu points out, in addition to his testimony, the
    evidence     includes   1998    and    2000    State       Department   reports
    documenting the poor conditions and abuse that mar the facilities
    in which those being repatriated are sometimes detained. But while
    these reports may well support a conclusion contrary to the BIA's,
    we cannot say that they compel that conclusion, at least in part
    because of their out datedness.
    III. Conclusion
    For the reasons set forth above, Wu's petition for review
    is DENIED.
    -11-