Zheng Yun Lin v. Gonzales

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-9-2005
Lin v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-1519
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Lin v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1039.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1039
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-1519
____________
ZHENG YUN LIN,
Petitioner
v.
*ALBERTO GONZALES,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UNITED STATES AMERICA,
Respondent
*(Amended pursuant to Rule 43(c), Fed. R. App. Pro.)
____________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
(No. A78-257-887)
______________
Submitted pursuant to LAR 34.1(a)
May 26, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and ALITO and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 9, 2005)
____________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________________
PER CURIAM:
Zheng Yun Lin (“Petitioner”) a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China (“the PRC”), seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the
BIA”). The BIA affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (the “IJ”) denying
Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Petitoner claims that his family was persecuted by the PRC
for violating that government’s “one child” policy. As we write for the parties only, we
do not set out the facts separately. We conclude that the BIA’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence, and we deny the petition for review.
I.
Where, as here, the BIA affirms an immigration judge’s decision without issuing
its own separate opinion, this Court reviews the decision of the immigration judge.
Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir. 2001). The administrative findings of
fact supporting a final order of removal cannot be reversed unless the administrative
record was such that “a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(A)-(B). This Court will affirm the IJ’s decision that
Petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal or protection under the Torture
Convention if there is substantial evidence to support the decision. Yan Lan Wu v.
Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418, 421 (3d Cir. 2005).
2
II.
Petitioner’s claim of past persecution turns upon whether his wife had been
forcibly sterilized. The primary evidence of record regarding this claim is a certificate,
issued by Changle City Hospital, stating that a Wei Hua Chen “underwent sterilization
operation” at that hospital on September 12, 1997.
In an attempt to determine the authenticity of the sterilization certificate, two
separate investigations were conducted through the United States consulate in Guang
Zhou, China. Both investigations concluded that the certificate was “fabricated.”
Petitioner argues that the IJ erred by considering the results of the investigations because
the conclusions were primarily based upon the Changle City Hospital’s denial of
authenticity. This was error, Petitioner contends, for two reasons. First, Changle City
Hospital is “funded and controlled by the [PRC],” and was therefore unlikely to provide
evidence of forced sterilization, which is disfavored by the international community.
Second, any hospital worker who verified the authenticity of the sterilization certificate
would have been fired. Pet. Br. 7-9. But Petitioner’s argument is supported only by his
own speculation. Although it is certainly plausible that the PRC would seek to minimize
the negative publicity that comes with the practice of forced sterilization, it is not clear
that Chinese hospitals typically deny the existence of forced sterilizations, or that hospital
workers are fired for failing to deny the existence of such procedures. Given the lenient
standard of review, Petitioner’s bare assertions are not sufficient evidence to compel a
3
conclusion different from the IJ’s determination. And given the IJ’s factual findings,
there is substantial evidence to support his conclusions.
III.
For the reasons given above, we deny Zheng Yun Lin’s petition.
4