Hailei Bu, et al v. Atty Gen USA, et al

Filing

MANDATE ISSUED, filed.

Download PDF
Hailei Bu, et al v. Atty Gen USA, et al Doc. 0 Att. 1 Case: 09-4397 Document: 003110280788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2010 IMG-260 N O T PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ N o . 09-4397 ___________ H A IL E I BU; DI JEN CHIEN, Petitioners v. A T T O R N E Y GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent ____________________________________ O n Petition for Review of an Order of the B o a rd of Immigration Appeals (A g e n c y Nos. A097-942-215; A094-048-592) I m m ig r a tio n Judge: Eugene Pugliese ____________________________________ S u b m itte d Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) J u ly 22, 2010 B e f o re : SCIRICA, SMITH AND WEIS, Circuit Judges O p in io n filed: July 23, 2010 ___________ O P IN IO N ___________ P E R CURIAM. P e titio n e r Hailei Bu and his wife Di Jen Chien petition for review of a d e c is io n by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") to dismiss their appeal of an im m ig ra tio n judge's decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of re m o v a l, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). For the Dockets.Justia.com Case: 09-4397 Document: 003110280788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2010 f o llo w in g reasons, we will deny the petition for review. I. B u is a native and citizen of China.1 He entered the United States in 1995 o n a visitor's visa. In 2006, he was served a Notice to Appear and charged under Section 2 3 7 (a )( 1 )( B ) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") with overstaying his visa. Bu filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the C A T . The basis of Bu's asylum claim was that he was persecuted as a member of the C h in e se Democratic Party ("CDP") and feared harm by the Chinese government if he w e re to return. Specifically, Bu testified that he was expelled from business school in M a y 1994 because he had participated in prohibited student activities related to the c o m m e m o ra tio n of the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident. AR 130-31. He testified that in c o n n e ctio n with those events he was summoned by police, interrogated, and struck in the f a c e when he refused to provide information. AR 131. After this incident Bu returned to h is hometown where he was arrested in October 1994 while walking down the street. Id. He was taken to a detention center, put into a small room, and his hands were tied behind h is back. Bu testified that the police wrapped a rope around his chest and that he was h u n g from a pipe on the ceiling and beaten severely. AR 131-32. The police demanded to know the names of the people he accompanied to Tiananmen Square, and continued to Petitioner Chien is a native and citizen of Taiwan. Like Bu, she was also charged w ith being subject to removal pursuant to INA § 237 (a)(a)(B). Chien has not filed an in d e p e n d e n t asylum application and is riding on her husband's. 2 1 Case: 09-4397 Document: 003110280788 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/13/2010 to rtu re Bu until he was unable to bear it any longer and confessed the names. He was th e n released. An immigration judge denied Bu's applications following a merits hearing in 2009. The IJ found that Bu's asylum application was untimely and that he did not e sta b lis h extraordinary circumstances to excuse his late filing. Further, the IJ found that B u would not have been eligible for relief in any case because his testimony lacked c r e d ib i lity. Bu appealed the decision to the BIA. The BIA dismissed the appeal because it found no clear error in the IJ's adverse credibility determination. The BIA did not re a ch the question of whether the IJ properly ruled that the asylum application was u n tim e ly. II. W e have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1 2 5 2 (a )(1 ). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Chen v . Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004). Because the BIA substantially relied upon th e IJ's adverse credibility determination, we review both the BIA's and the IJ's decisions w ith regard to the credibility determination. See Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 242 (3d C ir. 2004). We will affirm the adverse credibility finding if it is supported by " re a so n a b le , substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole." Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). We will uphold th e adverse credibility determination unless "any reasonable adjudicator would be 3 Case: 09-4397 Document: 003110280788 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/13/2010 co m p elled to conclude to the contrary." Kaita v. Att'y Gen., 522 F.3d 288, 296 (3d Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (citing Gao, 299 F.3d at 272). III. In denying relief, the IJ found Bu to be incredible because he embellished h is claims and added significant details concerning his alleged torture at the hands of C h in e se officials ­ events that go to the heart of his claim for asylum.2 Bu arrived in the U n ited States in 1995, but did not file an asylum application until 2006, allegedly due to th e unscrupulousness of the multiple attorneys and immigration service centers he relied o n for assistance. His first statement, which he claims he submitted with assistance from th e chairman of the Chinese Democratic Party in New York (the "Chairman"), described h is expulsion from school due to his political activities, but did not describe any physical a b u se by police. AR 297-98. Nor did Bu mention being arrested or beaten by police d u rin g his interview with an asylum officer in July 2006. AR 311-13. Bu did not d e sc rib e the incident when he was struck in the face by police until his second written s ta te m e n t, AR 243, and did not refer to his 1994 arrest and beating until his third written Because Bu filed his asylum application after the enactment of the REAL ID Act, th e inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or falsehoods upon which an adverse credibility finding is based need not go to the heart of his claim. See Lin v. Att'y Gen., 543 F.3d 114, 119 n .5 (3d Cir. 2008). Rather, the REAL ID Act permits credibility determinations to be b a se d on observations of Bu's demeanor, the plausibility of his story, and on the c o n s is te n c y of his statements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Gabuniya v. Att'y Gen., 4 6 3 F. 3d 316, 322 n.7 (3d Cir. 2006). 2 4 Case: 09-4397 Document: 003110280788 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/13/2010 statem en t, which was prepared in September 2008. AR 199-200. The IJ found that Bu's tale appeared to "get larger and larger and more ornate" over time, and he did not credit B u 's explanation that he had not included these facts in his original statement because he w a s embarrassed about his injuries and had been counseled by the Chairman that he need n o t mention them if it made him uncomfortable. AR 36, 38-39. We conclude that the IJ's finding of adverse credibility, and the BIA's affirming of that finding, are s u p p o rte d by substantial evidence. The IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for c o n c lu d in g that Bu lacked credibility, in particular, Bu's increasingly ornate testimony re g a rd in g the two most important episodes relating to his allegations of persecution. The B IA agreed with the IJ that Bu's explanation for the omissions ­ that he had relied on p o o r advice from the Chairman ­ was not persuasive. Although Bu argues that the IJ b a s e d this conclusion on improper speculation about Bu's level of "sophistication," we fin d no clear error in the decision not to credit Bu's proposed explanations. AR 39. In s u m , the evidence does not compel us to conclude that Bu was credible. See Chen, 376 F .3 d at 222; Xie, 359 F.3d at 243. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ's decision solely on th e basis of credibility, we need not address Bu's argument that the IJ erred in finding that th e re were no grounds to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. IV . F o r the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review. 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?