Qing Sho Liu v. Ashcroft

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-11-2003
Liu v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-3973
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Liu v. Atty Gen USA" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 62.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/62
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-3973
QING SHO LIU,
Appellant
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Attorney General of the United States
ON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(BIA No. A77-643-153)
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 5, 2003
Before: SLOVITER, ALITO, and OBERDORFER 1 , Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: December 11, 2003 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
1
Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia,
sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
Qiu Shou Lou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
appeals from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Mr. Liu claims that
he is eligible for asylum by virtue of the attempted forced abortion of his girlfriend by
Chinese authorities. The BIA affirmed an order by an immigration judge (IJ) denying
asylum or withholding of removal, and denying relief under the Convention Against
Torture. Because the BIA’s affirmance order was issued without an opinion, our review
is of the IJ’s underlying opinion. 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e)(4)(ii)(2002). Mr. Liu appeals only
the disposition of asylum claim.2 We affirm because we find that the IJ’s determination
that Mr. Liu was not eligible for asylum was “supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Because we write only for the parties, we will not restate the full
facts of the case.
Mr. Liu argues that he is eligible for asylum because he was persecuted in
China for political opinion. Specifically, Mr. Liu argues that he qualifies for asylum
under § 601 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996, which provides:
2
Because Mr. Liu’s brief contains no argument concerning the denial of withholding
of removal and denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, he has waived any
argument relating to these claims. See International Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer
Chemical Co., 978 F.2d 1318, 1327 (3d Cir. 1992) (“We have repeatedly emphasized
that failure to raise a theory as an issue on appeal constitutes a waiver”).
2
a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to
undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted
for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other
resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be
deemed to have been persecuted on account of political
opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or
she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to
persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be
deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account
of political opinion.
8 U.S.C. § 1101.
In an oral decision dated August 9, 2000, the IJ determined that Mr. Liu had
not demonstrated that his life or freedom would be threatened in China on account of
political opinion concerning China’s family planning policies. See App. at 121-23. The
IJ explained that his conclusion flowed from several determinations. First, the IJ
determined that Mr. Liu was not a credible witness. There were, according to the IJ,
numerous discrepancies in his evidence and testimony, including that Mr. Liu’s
“problems with government officials in China” actually related to the facts that Mr. Liu
illegally sold x-rated videotapes and that Mr. Liu had been illegally smuggled out of
China and not, as Mr. Liu’s asylum application stated, to family planning policies in
China. App. at 118-122. Second, the IJ determined that even if Mr. Liu was credible, he
would not be eligible for asylum because Mr. Liu’s girlfriend did not suffer sterilization
or abortion, see id. at 122, and because even if Mr. Liu’s girlfriend had been persecuted,
Mr. Liu would nonetheless be ineligible for asylum because the protection for such
persecution has not been extended beyond spouses of the persecuted individual. See id.3
(citing Matter of C-Y-Z, 21 I&N 915 (BIA 1997)).
Having reviewed the record and M r. Liu’s arguments, we conclude, for
substantially the same reasons identified by the IJ’s oral decision, that the IJ’s opinion
was “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481. It is
Affirmed.