Archive for the China One Child Policy Category

Chinese national denied asylum because she reported pregnant women subjected to forced abortions

Posted in China, China One Child Policy, forced abortion, Forced Population Control, Forced Sterilization, Immigration with tags , , , , , , on November 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

A Chinese National who claims she was wrongfully denied asylum in the United States because she reported pregnant women pregnant in violation of China’s one-child family planning policies, has lost her bid before the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

On February 25, 2008, Suzhen Meng was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor with authorization to remain for six months.

Five months later, on July 24, 2008, Meng filed for asylum stating that she had suffered past political persecution when, as a public security officer in her local community, she refused to collect a security fee from residents and wrote a letter to the local public security bureau alleging that the police chief was corrupt.

Meng asserted that, as a result of these actions, her passport was confiscated and she was arrested and held in custody for 14 days, during which time a guard slapped her in the face several times and fellow prisoners beat her on instruction of the guards.

Ten months later, Meng’s passport was returned when she promised not to engage in any further anti-government activities, whereupon she left China.

After having overstayed her visa Meng was later brought before a US immigration hearing.

During that hearing, she testified that in her twenty-two years as a public security officer her duties included reporting all pregnant women to China’s family planning office, including women pregnant in violation of state limitations.

Meng told the judge that she understood that when she reported a woman to authorities, that woman would be punished, typically by being forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization.

In addition, Meng testified to having seen women dragged away forcibly by the police.

Meng said that despite the severe consequences to women who were reported as pregnant against China law, she continued to make her reports. In her attempt to receive sympathy she claimed that she sometimes advised women whom she would report as being pregnant to go into hiding or to flee.

On November 3, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit upheld the decision of the Immigration Judge in denying Meng’s application for asylum. That judge had ruled that Meng’s active assistance in the persecution of pregnant women barred her from receiving asylum and ordered her removal from the United States.

In writing the court’s opinion, Judges Reena Raggi explained that asylum is a form of discretionary relief granted when a person shows either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

“Meng does not–and cannot–dispute that forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations constitute persecution on a protected ground,” Raggi wrote. “Nor does she dispute that women in her community who became pregnant in violation of family planning policy were subjected to such persecution.”

Despite the fact that Meng attempted to claim she would be persecuted if asylum were denied the court was not persuaded and called Meng the persecutor, writing that, “Meng’s reports regularly resulted in persecution, she knew that, and she nevertheless continued to report.”

“Meng engaged in such reporting over a period of two decades. In short, her assistance in persecution was not a single, marked departure from her duties, but a regular, and important, aspect of her duties. While Meng may have encouraged some women to hide or flee to avoid the persecution that she knew would follow from her conduct, the record indicates that Meng nevertheless persisted in reporting women with unauthorized pregnancies as long as she served as a public security official. Accordingly, because the record evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Meng assisted in persecution, we identify no legal error in the agency’s determination that the persecutor bar rendered Meng ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal,” the denial of review states.

R girls safe in China? Baby found alive in sewer pipe in China mom said she could not afford abortion

Posted in China, China One Child Policy with tags , , , , on May 29, 2013 by saynsumthn

Baby’s throat cut found in trash – China’s One Child Forced Abortion Policies to blame

Posted in child abuse, China, China One Child Policy with tags , , , on August 3, 2012 by saynsumthn


An abandoned newborn baby is recovering in hospital after having her throat cut, being put in a plastic bag and thrown into a garbage bin in China’s Liaoning province.

The female baby – so newborn that her placenta and umbilical cord were still attached – was discovered by a man who was searching a bin for recyclables.

Local residents called police and the tiny girl was taken to hospital, where she remains in a critical condition.

Read more:

China’s Forced Abortion and One Child Family Planning Policies are to blame !

China thanks Planned Parenthood for supporting China’s “family planning” policies, AFTER China forces abortions on women

Posted in China, China One Child Policy, forced abortion, IPPF, Planned Parenthood and China with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 27, 2012 by saynsumthn

On the night of June 6, 2012, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers received an emergency email about a Chinese woman in danger of forced abortion.

At least a dozen family planning officials broke into the home of Cao Ruyi, five months pregnant with her second child, and dragged her to the hospital for a forced abortion.

On June 3, 2012, Feng Jianmei, was beaten and dragged into a vehicle by a group of Family Planning Officials while her husband, Deng Jiyuan, was out working. The officials asked for RMB 40,000 in fines from Feng Jianmei’s family. When they did not receive the money, they forcibly aborted Feng at seven months, laying the body of her aborted baby next to her in the bed.

Just a few weeks ago, blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng, China’s highest-profile opponent of forced abortions carried under the country’s one-child policy, made global headlines with his daring escape from home confinement and six-day stay in the U.S. Embassy.

Amidst all this publicity on the horrific way China treats women and forces abortions, we see IPPF , International Planned Parenthood cozy with the family planning arm of China.

According to the National Population and Family Planning Commission of PR China, Vice Minister Chen Li met with Mr. Tewodro Melesse, Director-General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) on June 18, 2012, while he was attending the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

China’s Vice Minister Chen Li firstly thanked IPPF for its long term support and assistance to China’s family planning program, and hoped that the two sides would strengthen and deepen cooperation in the field of reproductive health/family planning. The Vice Minister briefed the Director-General on China’s principles and progresses made in population and sustainable development, and said that the Chinese Government insisted on making the development of human beings as the ultimate goal for development, and putting great emphasis on the mutual influencing and inter-linked connections between population, sustainable utilization of resources, environmental protection and sustainable development. He said that the population program of China had not only made important contributions to the stabilization of China’s population but also that of the world.

International Planned Parenthood’s Director: Mr. Tewodro Melesse expressed appreciation for the fruitful cooperation between IPPF and China in the past over 30 years and said that IPPF would conduct a range of activities in 2012 to mark the 60th anniversary of IPPF. He hoped that China would take an in-depth part in relative activities and provide support to IPPF as it always did.

Here the IPPF director claims that Planned Parenthood will DEFEND HUMAN RIGHTS…………………WE’RE WAITING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was not the first time the IPPF director met with China’s Family Planning teams….On the afternoon of July 13, 2011, Dr. Zhao Baige, Vice Minister of National Population and Family Planing Commission of China (NPFPC) met with Dr. Tewodros Melesse, Director General Elect, IPPF in Beijing.

Vice Minister Zhao Baige expressed her congratulations to Dr. Tewodros Melesse and her sincere gratitude to IPPF for its consistent support and assistance for years to China’s population and family planning program. She said, Dr. Tewodros Melesse was our old friend.

In 2009 Gill Greer, director-general of the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation, told Xinhua that the family planning policy has contributed a great deal to China’s remarkable economic and social achievements over the past 30 years.

By adopting the population control policy, Greer said, China has reduced its population growth rate and alleviated problems from overpopulation.

“Thus, the policy is very conducive to China’s development in various aspects such as economy, education and health care services..China won’t have achieved so much in the country’s development if it did not pursue its population control policy,” she said.

In a chilling op-ed, Norman Fleishman, the former vice president of Planned Parenthood World Population, recently called for enactment of the Obama contraceptive mandate, saying that it “along with China’s ‘one child policy’ is a start” at avoiding a world “doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.”

Fleishman is a signer of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), the reaffirmation of the credo that Planned Parenthood’s founders and funders professed. Planned Parenthood’s roots are plunged deep into the poisonous ground of secular humanism.

Planned Parenthood supporter, Obama Vice President Joe Biden, failed to condemn the forced abortion policies of China – seen here in this 2011 speech:

According to a report in CNS News, IPPF’s China affiliate is the China Family Planning Association (CFPA), which has been an IPPF member since 1983 and itself also receives funding from the UNFPA. According to the IPPF Web site, the CFPA “supports the present family planning policy of the government, which is appropriate for the present national situation.”

When the CFPA was established on May 30, 1980, a brief Xinhua news agency report stated that “the association will implement government population-control policies – the encouragement of one-child families and the gradual reduction of the population growth rate.”

Internationally, one of IPPF’s five “priority focus areas” (the five As) is abortion – “advocating for the right to safe abortion services and providing them to the fullest extent permitted by law.” (The other four are adolescents, AIDS, access – to services and information – and advocacy.)

Why Does NOW Support China’s Forced Abortion Policy?

Posted in China, China One Child Policy, forced abortion, NOW with tags , , , , , on June 18, 2012 by saynsumthn

reprinting after news of more forced abortions in China
China: Woman Forcibly Aborted at Seven Months

Published February 05, 2002

When Congress appropriated $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund, the organization that provides family planning services, such as birth control and abortion, to developing nations.

Among these nations is China, a nation whose “family plan” is a one-couple, one-child policy that coerces women to abort pregnancies that are not state sanctioned. The horror stories of women being subjected to forced abortions and involuntary sterilization under communist China are too numerous to be dismissed.

That may be why President Bush is contemplating exercising his presidential prerogative, under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, to block foreign funding that supports coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization. The amendment gives the president the sole discretion to stop such funding, and both President Reagan and the first President Bush used the amendment to block monies to the UNFPA due to its involvement with China.

But the president’s actions have sparked an outcry from the National Organization for Women and many feminist voices, which want America to support the UNFPA. But this position ignores the plight of Chinese women and funnels American tax dollars into supporting China’s policy. On this matter, NOW has ceased to be pro-choice: It has become de facto pro-abortion.

And after years of applauding President Clinton for opening the money spigot to UNFPA on the grounds that the organization was not directly involved in forced abortions, NOW is crying “foul!”

Yet the actual foul may have occurred in Congress when it approved the funding of family policies in China. It cannot claim to have acted out of ignorance. U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., held a well-publicized press conference to highlight the brutality of Chinese family policy.

Last year, witnesses from China told the U.S. Senate Committee on Human Rights about the brutal and unsanitary coerced abortions in China and how pregnant women fled into hiding.
“Once I found a woman who was nine-months pregnant, but did not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an abortion surgery,” Gao Xiaoduan, former family planning officer with the Chinese government, testified in tears before the U.S. House of Representatives. The baby was born alive, its lips sucking, its limbs stretching, Xiaoduan said. “A physician injected poison into its skull, and the child died, and it was thrown into the trash can.”

News stories of one-child atrocities abound. For example, a recent account in the Telegraph reported on Huaiji county — an area targeted for more than 20,000 abortions and sterilizations. “Medical” personnel with portable ultrasound equipment are expected to travel through the region, testing women, and forcing abortions on those with “unofficial” pregnancies.

Organizations like the D.C.-based think tank, Cato Institute, have spoken out consistently in protest. Cato includes the one-child policy on a short list of the greatest genocides of the 20th century.

So, USFPA funding passed Congress not due to ignorance of the facts but probably due to political pressure. In the forefront of support for the bill were so-called pro-choice congresswomen like Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., and Connie Morella, R-Md. “Feminist” organizations like NOW and the Feminist Majority lobbied hard to preserve this Clinton legacy.

The “pro-choice” voices were so determined that they seemed willing to ignore the systematic brutalization of women. After all, the UNFPA has long exported a liberal, NOW-styled reproductive agenda to the Third World.

How do “pro-choice” advocates justify supporting a forced abortion policy? They tend to make one of three arguments.

First, they deny China forces women to abort. During her keynote speech at the 1990 NOW National Convention, then-President Molly Yard boldly claimed that the Chinese government only encouraged women to abort extra children, using education not force. (The policy had been implemented in the early ’80s.)

Second, NOW states that forced abortions are not performed in regions where the UNFPA operates and the agency has no direct involvement. The actual charge against the UNFPA is complicity, however, not direct participation. For example, if the UNFPA buys the ultrasound equipment for Huaiji county, it would be supporting forced abortions without performing them. Moreover, it is difficult to believe assurances that the UNFPA will operate only in regions where abortions are voluntary: The one-child policy recently became national law, which will be implemented this September.

It is not clear how NOW regards the stories from brutalized Chinese women. NOW’s Web site and its other information sources seem strangely silent on this matter. There are extensive discussions of atrocities against women, such as the Taliban’s treatment of women, but discussion of China seems to focus on the role of the UNFPA. For example, a December 2001 NOW Legislative Update speaks of “the mistaken impression that UNFPA performs abortions in China.” It skips over the anguish of Chinese women and the fact that the one-child policy is an inherent denial of reproductive freedom.

The third argument for UNFPA funding involves a prime mission of the agency — to “stabilize” world population. Thus, in an infamous 1989 appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show, Molly Yard described the one-child policy as “among the most intelligent in the world …” Pro-abortion zealots seem to support not only the UNFPA funding but also the one-child policy itself. In doing so, they are betraying both women and reproductive “choice.” If this is not the case, then now is the time for them to speak out clearly. Unless NOW campaigns as vigorously against China’s one-child policy as it did against the Taliban’s treatment of women, it should abandon the rhetoric of reproductive “freedom.”

In a Dec. 12 speech to the National Press Club, NOW President Kim Gandy pleaded passionately to preserve reproductive choice for her daughters. Why do Chinese daughters deserve less?

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the forthcoming anthology Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Chinese Woman Forcibly Aborted at Seven Months

Posted in China, China One Child Policy, forced abortion with tags , , on June 12, 2012 by saynsumthn

Shanxi Province, China.

Women’s Rights Without Frontiers has learned that a woman was forcibly aborted at seven months of pregnancy on June 3, 2012.

According to a report by the China-based human rights organization 64Tianwang, the woman, Feng Jianmei, was beaten and dragged into a vehicle by a group of Family Planning Officials while her husband, Deng Jiyuan, was out working. The officials asked for RMB 40,000 in fines from Feng Jianmei’s family. When they did not receive the money, they forcibly aborted Feng at seven months, laying the body of her aborted baby next to her in the bed. Feng is under medical treatment in Ankang City, Zhenpin County, Zengjia Town, Yupin village.

Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, stated, “This is an outrage. No legitimate government would commit or tolerate such an act. Those who are responsible should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. WRWF calls on the United States government and the leaders of the free world to strongly condemn forced abortion and all coercive family planning in China.”

Sign a petition against forced abortion here:
http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/index.php?nav=sign_our_petition

Obama ADMIN on China and their victims of Forced Abortions

Posted in China, China One Child Policy with tags , , , , , , , , , on May 4, 2012 by saynsumthn

A lot of attention is being paid to China’s Forced Abortion Policies lately because of blind Chinese Activist, Chen Guangcheng, who is exposing their policies, but exactly how does the Obama Admin feel about China’s policies, if actions speak louder than words- he TOLERATES it:

Chen told The Associated Press that friends who had tried to visit him “have been beaten,” his wife Yuan Weijing had been followed and U.S. officials had been prevented from seeing him in person.

A doctor from the U.S. embassy arrives Friday at the Chaoyang Hospital, where blind activist Chen Guangcheng is staying.

He added that he had spoken to U.S. officials by phone, but “the calls keep getting cut off after two sentences.”

“Basically I am very worried. Okay? … It is very dangerous here,” Chen told the AP, before the line went dead.

Chen, 40, is a legal activist from Shandong province who campaigned against forced abortions under China’s “one-child” policy.

On April 22, he escaped 19 months of house arrest, during which he and his family faced beatings and threats. Supporters then said he was in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, which he left after six days to go to the hospital on Tuesday this week after receiving assurances from the Chinese authorities.

According to the Today Show, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in China and in Clinton’s prepared remarks for the meeting did not specifically mention Chen, but did say that the responsibilities of a “great nation” included “protecting the fundamental freedoms of all citizens at home.”

“All governments have the responsibility of addressing their citizens’ aspirations for dignity and rule of law. These are not Western values — they are universal rights that apply to all people in all places,” she said.

But, in the United States, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told Reuters that Chen had been offered a fellowship from an American university, where he could be accompanied by his wife and two children.

Chen is asking the US and China to allow he and his family to leave on Clinton’s Plane out of the country.

Yesterday, Chen made this surprise call to someone attending a Congressional Hearing ( sponsored up by Rep. Chris Smith) , on the issue of Chen’s freedom:

OBAMA VP MAKES LIGHT OF CHINESE FORCED ABORTION POLICIES, “UNDERSTANDS” them:

Biden to China: “Not Second-Guessing” One-Child Policy
by Steven Ertelt | Beijing, China | LifeNews.com | 8/22/11 1:05 PM
Vice-President Joe Biden is in China to attempt to revive the financial image of the United States after a first-ever downgrade in its financial rating. In attempting to explain some of the financial concerns the U.S. faces, Biden talked about China’s one-child policy.

The one-child policy, instituted by the Communist government in the late 1970s to stem rising population, compels couples in urban areas to have just one child and limits couples in rural areas to two children if the first child is a girl, as girls are seen as having lesser value than boys in some parts of the Asian nation.

The policy has stirred global controversy since it was implemented, as it has resulted in massive campaigns of forced abortions and
sterilizations, fines for families violating the rule, sentences to prison and forced labor camps for violators and their families who shelter them from government officials, home detention, loss of jobs or government benefits, beatings and other human rights abuses.

In his statement, Biden talked about the other set of concerns about the one-child policy — demographic — in that China will increasingly have similar problems to the United States in terms of paying for entitlements to the growing number of people retiring who will need government support to make ends meet and a smaller population of
younger workers able to take care of those obligations.

“But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net,” Biden said in the prepared remarks. “Your policy has been one which I fully understand —I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of
four retired people. Not sustainable.”

“So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that’s much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that,” he continued.

Although he highlighted the demographic concerns, his statement that the United States is “not second-guessing” the forced-abortion, one-child policy and his essentially ignoring the forced abortions, sterilizations and other human rights abuses that accompany it, will surely upset pro-life advocates who have campaigned extensively against the one-child policy and supported the victims of it.

The speech represents a second missed opportunity for the Obama administration to present a clear position against the policy that is one of the most egregious global human rights abuses in modern times. Biden’s comments follow a visit earlier this year from China President Hu Jintao, where President Barack Obama apparantly failed to ask the

foreign leader about the problem of forced abortions on Chinese women. Ask during a U.S. House hearing, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn’t say whether Obama brought up the massive human rights abuse millions of Chinese women endure if they break the country’s one-child
family planning rules.

In remarks LifeNews.com received from New Jersey Republican Congressman Chris Smith’s office following the hearing, Smith let Clinton know in a statement he delivered during the hearing that China’s one-child policy is a problem.

“Since 1979, brothers and sisters have been illegal in China as part of the barbaric one child per couple policy. And for 30 years, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has vigorously supported, funded, defended, promoted, even celebrated these massive crimes against humanity,” Smith told Clinton. “The uncontested facts are
these: Any Chinese, Tibetan, or Uyghur mother without a birth permit is put under coercive pressure to abort – if need be, she is physically forced to do so. All unwed moms are compelled to abort. In what can only be described as a search-and-destroy mission, disabled children are aborted as part of a nationwide eugenics program.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OBAMA Attorney General Eric Holder, Returns Chinese who are victims of FORCED ABORTIONS :
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

JIA XIN OU v. HOLDER
JIA XIN OU, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS Respondents.
No. 09-2246-ag-NAC.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 13, 2010.

Henry Zhang, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Janice Redfern,
Senior Litigation Counsel; Scott Rempell, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Present: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, ROGER J. MINER, PIERRE N. LEVAL,
Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
Jia Xin Ou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
seeks review of an April 30, 2009 order of the BIA affirming the
October 26, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte
Laforest, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In
re Jia Xin Ou, No. A099 670 040 (B.I.A. Apr. 30, 2009), aff’g No. A099
670 040 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 26, 2007). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this
case.

We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable
standards of review are well-settled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir.
2007); see also Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
2008).

Contrary to Ou’s argument, the IJ properly based her denial of his
applications for relief on Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494
F.3d 296, 309-12 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc), the controlling authority
at the time she rendered her oral decision, rather than based on the
law as it stood on the day of Ou’s April 2007 merits hearing. The IJ
could not have made her decision prior to DHS’s completion of the
requisite background checks. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(g) (requiring all
identity, law enforcement, and security investigations to be completed
prior to an IJ granting an application for immigration relief). Once
these background checks were complete, the IJ was bound to apply the
law as it stood on the day of her decision. See Harper v. Virginia
Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 97-98 (1993) (finding that courts are
bound “to apply a rule of federal law retroactively after the case
announcing the rule has already done so” in all cases still open on
direct review).

Furthermore, we find no error in the agency’s denial of relief. Lin
does not contest that he was not eligible for asylum based on his
wife’s forced abortion
. See Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 309-12.
Moreover, contrary to Ou’s assertion, the factual record in the case
was “adequately developed” with respect to the issue of Ou’s “other
resistance” to the Chinese family planning policy. See Shu Wen Sun v.
BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 381 n.5 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Moreover, the agency reasonably determined that even if Ou did engage
in resistance to China’s family planning policy, he failed to
demonstrate that he was persecuted on account of that resistance. See
Shi Liang Lin, 494 F.3d at 313 (citing Matter of S-L-L, 24 I. & N.
Dec. 1, 10 (B.I.A. 2005)). Nothing in the record compels the
conclusion that Ou’s arrest, detention, and mistreatment upon his
repatriation to China were as a result of his resistance to China’s
population control policy as opposed to his violation of the country’s
immigration laws. See Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962 F.2d 234,
239 (2d Cir. 1992) (“[P]unishment for violation of a generally
applicable criminal law is not persecution.”).

Because Ou’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief were
based on the same factual predicate as his asylum claim, and the BIA
reasonably found that he was unable to meet his burden for asylum, he
was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to succeed
on his claim for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Paul v.
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.
Dep’t. of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 523 (2d Cir. 2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we
have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any
pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LIAN YING ZHANG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S.
LIAN YING ZHANG, Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.
No. 08-4563.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 18, 2009.
Opinion filed: January 6, 2010.
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
OPINION
PER CURIAM.

Lian Ying Zhang petitions for review of the October 27, 2008 decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we
will deny her petition for review.

Zhang, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States
without inspection in April 2000. In 2005, when she was pregnant with
her second child, Zhang applied for asylum, withholding of removal and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming that she
feared returning to China because she had a Chinese son (now in his
twenties who remained in China) and would soon have a second child in
violation of China’s one-child family planning policies.[ 1 ] Zhang
filed a tome of documents in support of her claim, including birth
certificates for her children, Fujian Province Birth Control
Regulations and Fujian Province administrative opinions and decisions
from 2003 regarding the treatment of foreign-born children for family
planning purposes in the cities of Changle and Fuzhou in Fujian
Province, numerous articles, affidavits (including the affidavit of
demographer Dr. John Aird), transcripts of Congressional testimony,
the State Department’s 2002 “Travel Tips,” and the State Department
Country Report on Human Rights Practices in China for 2005 (“2005
Country Report”).

Following a hearing, the IJ denied all relief, finding that Zhang
failed to demonstrate that she held a well-founded fear of
persecution. Specifically, the IJ found that although Zhang had
established through testimony, affidavits, and other evidence that she
had a genuine subjective fear of persecution upon her return to China,
she failed to show that she had an objectively reasonable fear that
she would be forcibly sterilized. The IJ noted Zhang’s evidence
purporting to show that she would have to register her American-born
child in China, including the affidavit of one individual, unknown to
Zhang personally, who returned to Fujian Province with two
foreign-born children and was forced to undergo sterilization. Relying
on the State Department’s Profile of Asylum Claims for China for 2005
(“2005 Profile”), and an opinion letter dated January 7, 2007, from
Julieta Valls Noyes, Director of the State Department’s Office of
Multilateral and Global Affairs (“2007 Opinion Letter”), the IJ
decided that “the matter of whether [Zhang’s] U.S. child will even be
counted against her total for family planning purposes is, at best,
disputed.” The IJ was unpersuaded that Zhang would be singled out for
persecution if she returned to China. The IJ found the affidavits of
Zhang’s cousins, attesting that they had been forcibly sterilized
after having two children, to be largely irrelevant because these
individuals did not have foreign-born children.

The IJ also found that Zhang failed to show that Fujian Province
engaged in a pattern or practice of forced sterilization in cases like
her own. The IJ found the bulk of Zhang’s documentary evidence to be
unpersuasive because it was outdated, addressed circumstances in a
different province, had been discredited (as in the case of the Aird
Affidavit), or because it did not tend to show that Fujian Province
engaged in mandatory forced sterilization or abortion as opposed to
assessing “social compensation fees” against violators of family
planning policy. While the IJ acknowledged that the State Department’s
2002 “Travel Tips” document stated that American-born children would
be treated as Chinese citizens if their Chinese parents had no
immigration status in the United States, she noted that the document
did not address specifically whether the children would be “counted”
against the parents for family planning purposes. Relying again on the
2005 Profile and the 2007 Opinion Letter, the IJ found that, in any
event, the record evidence “pointed to a marked decrease in
enforcement of the family planning policy through forced abortion
and/or sterilization and does not indicate that there is pattern or
practice of sterilizing individuals who return to China after having
children in the United States.
” (IJ Opinion, JA-15.)[ 2 ] The BIA
adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. Zhang filed this timely
petition for review.

We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of the BIA
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 547 (3d
Cir. 2001). “[W]hen the BIA both adopts the findings of the IJ and
discusses some of the bases for the IJ’s decision, we have authority
to review the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA.” Chen v. Ashcroft,
376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004). We review both decisions under a
substantial evidence standard. See Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477,
483 (3d Cir. 2001). Under this deferential standard of review, we will
uphold the findings of the BIA “unless the evidence not only supports
a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Id. at 484.

To qualify for asylum, an applicant must demonstrate, among other
things, a well-founded fear of persecution based on both a
subjectively genuine fear of persecution and an objectively reasonable
possibility of persecution. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,
430-31 (1987). To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an
applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” See
Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1238 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting INS v.
Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)).

In her petition for review, Zhang claims that the IJ mischaracterized
the evidence, which, Zhang asserts, established that she would be
subject to forced sterilization if she returned to China with her
American-born child
. We disagree. According to the 2005 Profile and
the 2007 Opinion Letter upon which the IJ and the BIA relied, birth
planning policy in China is established nationally; the enforcement of
the policy is left to the provinces and local villages and can vary
widely from province to province and from village to village. (See
JA-1366; 1410.) The State Department acknowledges that forced
sterilization and abortions, which violate national law, continue to
be documented
.[ 3 ] (JA at 1367-68; 1410.) As for enforcement of birth
planning policy in Fujian Province, however, although “public and
other pressure” may be used to encourage compliance with birth
planning laws, United States officials “did not find any cases of
physical force employed in connection with abortion or sterilization”
in the last ten years. (2005 Profile, JA at 1370; 2007 Opinion Letter,
JA at 1410 (“Regarding the alleged existence of an official government
policy mandating the sterilization of one partner of couples that have
given birth to two children, U.S. officials in China are not aware of
such a policy at either the national or provincial level”)). In sum,
we conclude that the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions are supported by
substantial evidence.

Zhang also protests that the assessment of harsh and exorbitant social
compensation fees alone constitutes persecution in her case. The BIA
implicitly rejected Zhang’s argument when it concluded that she failed
to show a well-founded fear of persecution and affirmed the IJ’s
removal order. The BIA has addressed economic sanctions in Fujian
Province and has found that, at most, an alien would face “moderate
economic impact” not amounting to persecution. In re J-W-S-, 24 I. &
N. Dec. 185, 191 (BIA 2007); Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 164 (2d
Cir. 2008) (finding that the BIA in J-W-S- reasonably concluded that
the economic rewards and penalties used to implement the family
planning policy in Fujian Province did not necessarily amount to
“physical or mental coercion”). Here, Zhang offered no evidence
indicating that Fujian Province would impose more stringent and
punitive economic sanctions in her case than the moderate sanctions
Fujian Province normally imposes on its residents who violate the
family planning policy. The State Department documents on record
indicate only that Fujian Province imposes economic sanctions where
foreign-born children are registered as permanent residents. (See 2005
Profile, JA at 1374; 2007 Opinion Letter, JA at 1411.)[ 4 ] Thus,
there is simply nothing in the record that would compel us to conclude
that economic sanctions, if any, that Fujian Province might impose on
Zhang would be so exorbitant as to amount to persecution. Cf. Li v.
Att’y Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 168 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[T]he deliberate
imposition of severe economic disadvantage which threatens a
petitioner’s life or freedom may constitute persecution.”).
Next, Zhang contends that the BIA failed to properly consider the
documents she submitted at the immigration hearing in support of her
claim.[ 5 ] Contrary to her assertion, the BIA “is not required to
`write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely
that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms
sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard
and thought and not merely reacted.'” Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241,
256 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Mansour v. INS, 230 F.3d 902, 908 (7th
Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted)). Here, the BIA acknowledged
the voluminous record in Zhang’s case and properly concluded that it
was insufficient to carry her burden of proof.

Zhang also argues that the BIA failed to remand her case to the IJ to
consider several documents that Zhang submitted for the first time on
appeal. The BIA declined to consider the additional documents, noting
that its review was “limited to the record as was constituted before
the Immigration Judge.” See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i) and (iv)
(“Except for taking administrative notice of commonly known facts such
as current events or the contents of official documents, the Board
will not engage in factfinding in the course of deciding appeals.”).
We cannot fault the BIA for not considering a remand to the IJ for
consideration of the additional documents, as Zhang did not file a
motion to remand, and mentioned “remand” only once in her brief before
the BIA.[ 6 ] See Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir. 1994)
(“Discretionary decisions of the BIA will not be disturbed unless they
are found to be `arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.'”)
(quoting Chun Chung v. INS, 602 F.2d 608, 612 (3d Cir. 1998)).
Moreover, Zhang has not explained (either before us or to the BIA) why
the additional documents she submitted on appeal to the BIA were not
previously available or how the evidence, if considered, would change
the result in her case. Cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to
reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board
that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available
and could not have been discovered or presented at the former
hearing.”).

In sum, we cannot say that the evidence compels a conclusion contrary
to that of the BIA. See Yu v. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 346, 348-49
(holding that State Department Country Reports constituted substantial
evidence supporting the BIA’s finding that petitioner’s fear of forced
sterilization upon returning to China
was not objectively reasonable);
Chen, 376 F.3d at 223 (requiring asylum applicant to demonstrate by
“credible, direct, and specific evidence an objectively reasonable
basis for the claimed fear of persecution”). Accordingly, we will deny
the petition for review.

1. Zhang gave birth to her daughter, Zoe Chen, in 2006.

2. In the opinion, the IJ mistakenly referred to the 2006 Profile of
Asylum Claims as “Exhibit 10.”

3. In Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007), the BIA
discussed at length the State Department’s 2005 and 2006 Profile of
Asylum Claims and its 2005 and 2006 Country Reports on China. The 2006
State Department Asylum Claims Profile and Country Report are not in
evidence in Zhang’s case.

4. In Matter of J-W-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007), the BIA
discussed at length the State Department’s 2005 and 2006 Profile of
Asylum Claims and its 2005 and 2006 Country Reports on China. The 2006
State Department Asylum Claims Profile and Country Report are not in
evidence in Zhang’s case.

5. Among other evidence she claims the BIA failed to consider, Zhang
emphasizes Dr. Aird’s affidavit and accompanying materials.
(Petitioner’s Brief at 18-20.) In Yu v. Attorney General, 513 F.3d
346, 348-49 (3d Cir. 2008), we agreed with the BIA that the State
Department’s Profile of Asylum Claims and its Country Report on China,
both issued in 2005, tended to cast doubt on the utility of Dr. Aird’s
frequently-cited affidavit, which provided only generalized statements
regarding China’s family planning policies and did not specifically
address the issue of couples returning to China with foreign-born
children.

6. We note that twenty-one of the thirty documents contained in the
“new background material” appear to be in the record already. (Compare
background-index, JA at 90-97, with indices of documents submitted at
the removal hearing, JA at 1662-1665 & 1264-65.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
YI MEI ZHU v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF U.S.
YI MEI ZHU; JIE JIANG, Petitioners,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent.
No. 09-1254.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 5, 2010.
Filed: January 13, 2010.
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.

Yi Mei Zhu (lead respondent) and her husband, Jie Jiang (derivative
respondent) petition for review of the final removal order issued by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial of Zhu’s
application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under
the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons
set forth below, we will deny the petition.

We highlight only those facts that are pertinent to our analysis. Zhu
and Jiang, natives and citizens of the People’s Republic of China,
come from that country’s Fujian Province. They entered the United
States without valid visas or other entry documents. They conceded
removability and requested asylum, withholding of removal, relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure.
According to their testimony, Zhu and Jiang were married in a
traditional ceremony in 1995, but they could not register the marriage
with the government because Jiang was underage. Consequently, when Zhu
became pregnant in May 1995, she went into hiding to avoid the Fujian
Province family planning authorities. In November 1995, the
authorities tracked her down and took her to a local hospital against
her will where she received an injection to induce labor. She was then
transported immediately to the Fouchou City Hospital where she aborted
the pregnancy. Zhu was discharged from the hospital three days later.
Zhu and Jiang registered their marriage in March 1996 and, in February
1997, Zhu had a son. The family planning authorities forced Zhu to
have an intra-uterine device (IUD) inserted after their son’s birth.
When Zhu and Jiang decided to have a second child, they fled to avoid
China’s coercive family planning policies. Once in the United States,
Zhu had her IUD removed. Their second child was born in the United
States in 2004.

In support of her allegation that she underwent a forced abortion, Zhu
submitted her out-patient medical record from Fouchou City Hospital.

The Government submitted a State Department investigative report
indicating, among other things, that the contents of the out-patient
record were fabricated.[ 1 ] The Report was based on a certification
by the Deputy Director of the Fouchou City Hospital that the patient
record number “00025145” was not used in 1995; induced abortions could
not be done on an out-patient basis; standard medical terminology was
not used in the record; and the doctor or mid-wife whose signature
appeared on the document never worked at the hospital. (J.A . at 307.)
The IJ denied asylum relief as untimely and denied withholding of
removal and CAT relief because Zhu failed to show that she was
entitled to relief. The IJ cited certain evidentiary inconsistencies
and contradictions that had “a severe impact on the respondent’s
[Zhu’s] credibility.” (J.A. 37.) First, she noted inconsistencies in
the testimonies of Zhu’s husband and her sister concerning Zhu’s and
Jiang’s arrival in the United States. Second, the IJ found that the
investigative report, which indicated that Zhu’s out-patient medical
record was fabricated, seriously undermined her testimony about a
forced abortion in November 1995. The IJ thus concluded that, absent
credible evidence, Zhu failed to show that she had suffered past
persecution.

The IJ also found that Zhu failed to show a well-founded fear of
future persecution based on the State Department’s 2004 Country Report
on Human Rights Practices in China (2004 Country Report), which
indicated that China allowed couples to have two children if the
births were separated by a period of years. Noting that there was a
seven-year gap between the births of Zhu’s two children, the IJ
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that the
respondents would be forcibly sterilized in China for having a second
child in the United States. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s untimeliness
determination as to asylum and her adverse credibility determination
as to all claims for relief, concluding that Zhu failed to meet her
burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT relief.

In most cases, we have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal
involving the denial of asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). However, 8
U.S.C. § 1158 provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review
any determination regarding the timeliness of an asylum application
and the applicability of the exceptions. See Tarrawally v. Ashcroft,
338 F.3d 180, 184-85 (3d Cir. 2003). Under the REAL ID Act, we have
jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law, but
not factual or discretionary determinations related to the timeliness
of an asylum application. Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 634
(3d Cir. 2006); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Zhu has not raised any legal
or constitutional claims regarding the IJ’s determination that her
asylum claim was untimely.[ 2 ] Because we lack jurisdiction to
consider her asylum application for timeliness, our review is limited
to issues relating to the denial of withholding of removal and relief
under the CAT.

To be eligible for withholding of removal, Zhu must demonstrate that
it is more likely than not that her life would be threatened in China
on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion. Tarrawally, 338 F.3d at 186; 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). To be eligible for CAT relief, Zhu must
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured
if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).

When, as here, the BIA substantially relies on the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination, the Court reviews the decisions of both the
IJ and the BIA. Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215, 222 (3d Cir. 2004). We
may reverse the BIA’s decision only if the record permits but one
reasonable conclusion that was not the one reached by the Board.
I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The IJ’s adverse
credibility finding must be upheld unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. Fiadjoe v. Attorney
General, 411 F.3d 135, 153 (3d Cir. 2005). Only inconsistencies going
to the heart of the claims will be deemed to compromise credibility.[
3 ] Chukwu v. Attorney General, 484 F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir. 2007).
The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. Zhu testified that Fujian Province Family Planning
authorities forced her to have an abortion very late in her pregnancy
in 1995, but she submitted a fabricated out-patient medical record as
corroborating proof. Her submission of a false document to support her
claim wholly undermined her credibility.
For this reason alone, a
reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to conclude that the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding was erroneous. See Tarrawally, 338 F.3d at
187 (holding that an adverse credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence, even where only some of the stated bases are
appropriate).[ 4 ]

Citing Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2004),[ 5 ]
she argues that the record lacks any evidence from which a reasonable
factfinder could infer that Zhu knew that the out-patient medical
record was fabricated. (Pet. Br. at 7-8.) The Government counters that
we lack jurisdiction to consider Zhu’s argument because she failed to
present it before the BIA. The Court’s jurisdiction is limited under §
242(d)(1) of the INA, to cases where the petitioner “has exhausted all
administrative remedies available as of right . . . .” 8 U.S.C. §
1252(d)(1); see Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 594-95 (3d Cir.
2003). A petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies if he
raises all issues before the BIA. Based on the notice of appeal and
Zhu’s brief before the BIA, we conclude that the BIA was not given
sufficient notice of Zhu’s claim that she was unaware that the medical
record was falsified. See Lin v. Attorney General, 543 F.3d 114, 121
(3d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the
unexhausted claim.

Zhu also argues that the IJ erred in giving the investigative report
“enormous weight,” thereby failing to consider her credibility based
on her testimony and demeanor. We disagree. By crediting the State
Department’s investigative report, the IJ necessarily rejected Zhu’s
testimony that someone at Fouchou City Hospital gave her the
out-patient record personally while she was at the hospital and that
she kept the record in her special drawer for important documents in
her home in China, where it remained until her relatives retrieved it
and sent it to the United States at her request. (J.A. at 279-81.)
Even if Zhu’s demeanor was exemplary, faced with such contradictory
evidence, the IJ had to accept one piece of evidence and reject the
other. Here, there is substantial evidence supporting the IJ’s
conclusion to credit the investigative report.[ 6 ] Hence, we are not
compelled to conclude that the IJ erred.

With respect to her well-founded fear of persecution claim, we agree
with the BIA that Zhu failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that
it is more likely than not that she or her husband would be sterilized
upon their return to China. The 2004 State Department Country Report
for China supports the conclusion that Zhu failed to show that her
fear of sterilization was objectively reasonable. See Yu v. Attorney
General, 513 F.3d 346, 348-49 (3d Cir. 2008); In re C-C-, 23 I. & N.
Dec. 899, 901-04 (BIA 2006) (concluding that, without additional
evidence to the contrary, recent State Department Country Reports
indicate that petitioner’s claimed fear of sterilization was not
reasonable). Zhu’s testimony provided no evidence contradicting the
Country Report.

Based on the foregoing, we concluded that the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding was amply supported by the record, and thus will not upset the
IJ’s determination that Zhu was not entitled to withholding of removal
or for relief under the CAT. We further conclude that the IJ’s
determination that Zhu failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of
persecution was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we
will deny the petition for review.

1. The Report also verified the authenticity of the “periodic
gynecological examination certificate” Zhu submitted to support her
claim that her IUD was inserted by Family Planning authorities in
China, and noted the examiners’ unsuccessful attempts to authenticate
a letter from her husband’s employer. (J.A. at 306.)

2. The IJ ruled that Zhu failed to show that her asylum application
was timely based on “the obvious contradictions between the male’s
[Jiang’s] testimony and the testimony of the witness [Bo Yuan Zhu] and
the total lack of documentation [like an airplane ticket stub]
regarding the arrival of the female respondent [Zhu] into the United
States.” (J.A. 37) In her brief, Zhu claimed that the IJ erred as a
matter of fact in discrediting the evidence as to timeliness.

3. Section 101(a)(3) of the REAL ID Act “applies only to cases where
the applicant applied for asylum or other relief after May 11, 2005,”
and accordingly does not apply in this case. Chukwu v. Attorney
General, 484 F.3d 185, 189 (3d Cir. 2007).

4. Although it does not change the result in this case, we note that,
in making an adverse credibility determination, the IJ inappropriately
relied on inconsistencies in testimony pertaining to the timeliness of
Zhu’s asylum application. These inconsistencies clearly do not go to
the heart of her past persecution claim.

5. In Yeimane-Berhe, the Ninth Circuit held that an IJ’s adverse
credibility finding based solely on a fraudulent medical record was
not supported by substantial evidence where there was no evidence that
the petitioner knew that the record was fabricated and nothing else in
the record suggested that the petitioner was not credible. 393 F.3d at
911-13.

6. Zhu’s assertion that the IJ should have taken into account the fact
that Chinese officials would not be willing to confirm that
persecution had occurred, is belied by the Chinese authorities
willingness to confirm the authenticity of the periodic gynecological
examination.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ZAI XIANG CHEN v. HOLDER
ZAI XIANG CHEN, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,[ 1 ] Respondent.
No. 08-6085-ag-NAC.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
January 11, 2010.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner.
Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Aviva L. Poczter, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Christopher P. McGreal, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED, that the petition for review is DENIED.
Zai Xiang Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, seeks review of a November 20, 2008 order of the BIA, affirming
the June 1, 2001 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) John Opaciuch,
which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zai Xiang
Chen, No. A076 388 443 (B.I.A. Nov. 20, 2008), aff’g No. A076 388 443
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 1, 2001). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
case.

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as
the final agency determination. Yu Sheng Zhang v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 362 F.3d 155, 159 (2d Cir. 2004). The applicable standards of
review are well-established. See Shu Wen Sun v. BIA, 510 F.3d 377, 379
(2d Cir. 2007); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
2008).

Chen asserts that he is eligible for relief from removal because his
wife was forced to undergo an abortion and to use an intrauterine
device.
It is unnecessary to examine the IJ’s credibility findings in
connection with this claim because even if such findings were flawed,
remand would be futile. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480
F.3d 104, 117 (2d Cir. 2007). We can predict with confidence that the
agency would reach the same result upon reconsideration of Chen’s
claim, because, pursuant to our decision in Shi Liang Lin v. U.S.
Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 314 (2d Cir. 2007) (en banc), Chen is
not per se eligible for asylum based on his wife’s alleged
persecution.

Shi Liang Lin clarified that the spouse of a person who has been
forced to undergo a forced abortion or sterilization may qualify for
refugee status if he or she demonstrates past persecution or fear of
future persecution based on “other resistance to a coercive population
control program.”
494 F.3d at 314; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Before the IJ, Chen alleged that he quarreled with family planning
officials after they forced his wife to submit to an abortion, and
that the authorities wanted to arrest him as a result.
We do not
address whether such conduct could qualify as other resistance because
substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Chen’s
testimony with respect to the quarrel was not credible.
Notably,
Chen’s statements during his credible fear interview regarding the
circumstances of his escape from family planning officials were
inconsistent with his testimony before the IJ. Moreover, the IJ did
not err in finding sufficiently reliable the record of Chen’s credible
fear interview, which consisted of a verbatim transcript. See Ming
Zhang v. Holder, 585 F.3d 715, 722-26 (2d Cir. 2009).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we
have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court
previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion
for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any
pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and
Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

Other Items on CHINA- Here –

In an article in China’s People Daily entitled, China’s population policy draws wide praise September 29, 2009

Gill Greer, director-general of the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation, told Xinhua that the family planning policy (of China) has contributed a great deal to China’s remarkable economic and social achievements over the past 30 years.

By adopting the population control policy, Greer said, China has reduced its population growth rate and alleviated problems from overpopulation.

“Thus, the policy is very conducive to China’s development in various aspects such as economy, education and health care services,” she said.

Perhaps a look at the beginnings of Planned Parenthood and their ties to Eugenics will explain their ability to turn the other way while women loose “Choice” in China – Watch Maafa21 for details (Clip Below)

READ: Social Justice on Immigration? Except for forced abortion victims- Board of Immigration again denies asylum

READ: Baby Almost Cremated Alive : Aborted baby cries before cremation

READ: China hunts down thousands to sterilize, Planned Parenthood calls policy a contributor to, “China’s remarkable economic and social achievement”

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/china-one-child-policy/page/14/

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/china-one-child-policy/page/16/

https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/category/china-one-child-policy/page/18/