Archive for Eric Holder

Black abortions reduce crime joke Ferguson officials said DOJ

Posted in Black Lives Matter, DOJ, Ferguson, Gruber with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 5, 2015 by saynsumthn

Without getting into the politics of the Ferguson police shooting case, the Justice Department has unveiled some disturbing e-mails from the Ferguson city officials linking black abortions to a reduction in crime.

Ferguson DOJ Investigation

This week, the Justice Department announced the findings of its two civil rights investigations related to Ferguson, Missouri, today. The Justice Department found that the Ferguson Police Department (FPD) engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First, Fourth, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution. The Justice Department also announced that the evidence examined in its independent, federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Michael Brown does not support federal civil rights charges against Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson.

They DOJ wrote this about the stereotype of Black abortions reducing crime:

Our investigation has revealed that these disparities occur, at least in part, because of unlawful bias against and stereotypes about African Americans. We have found substantial evidence of racial bias among police and court staff in Ferguson. For example, we discovered emails circulated by police supervisors and court staff that stereotype racial minorities as criminals, including one email that joked about an abortion by an African-American woman being a means of crime control,” the report reads.

ABortion Crime Ferguson

A May 2011 email stated: “An African – American woman in New Orleans was admitted into the hospital for a pregnancy termination. Two weeks later she received a check for $5,000. She phoned the hospital to ask who it was from.The hospital said, ‘Crimestoppers,’” the report states.


The idea that Black abortions contribute to a reduction of crime dates all the way back to eugenics of which advocates like, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a part of.

In fact, abortion is the number one killer of the Black Community prompting pro-lifers to challenge the Ferguson #BlackLivesMatter hashtag because Black leaders were not protesting abortion.

David Clark Jr

A tweet sent by Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke about the Ferguson protests went viral after he joined in the criticism of the black communicates’ failure to protest abortion, it
read, “If only these faux protesters were asked by media about all the black on black killing or black babies aborted in US every year.

David A Clark abortion tweet

In addition, recent ideas linking African American abortions to crime reduction have been spread through abortion radicals as well. Case in point is a blog I recently published about ObamaCare architect, Jonathan Gruber.


Abortions decrease birth rates in Non-White women:

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; (both co-authors with Gruber on his paper) along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

Abortion decreases welfare
In Gruber’s paper, Abortion and Selection, Gruber repeats the oft heard eugenics reason for abortion, that it reduces welfare.

Gruber and his fellow authors sandwiched their analysis this way, “We found consistent evidence that changes in cohort composition that occurred in the 1970s that can be attributed to greater abortion access led to improved cohort outcomes, particularly in the form of higher rates of college graduation, lower rates of single motherhood, and lower rates of welfare receipt.”

Abortion reduces crime

Gruber and the other authors also conclude among other things that there is a link between increased abortion access and a reduction of crime.

That theory was perpetuated by John J. Donahue and and Steven D. Levitt in a paper they wrote entitled, “The impact of legalized abortion on crime.

According to Life News, in Harvard University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics, Donahue and Levitt concluded that “Legalized abortion contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. … Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.” The authors noted, “Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization,” and that the social benefit of this decrease in crime is about $30 billion annually.

Donohue and Levitt wrote that, since 1991 ― 18 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion ― murder rates have fallen faster than at any time since the end of Prohibition in 1933. They added that the five states that legalized abortion earlier than 1973 [New York, California, Washington, Hawaii and Alaska] also experienced earlier declines in crime. Finally, they found that states with especially high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s had equally dramatic crime reductions in the 1990s, Life News reported.

Levitt went on to co-author the 2005 bestseller Freakonomics, in which he reiterated his thesis that the legalization of abortion is responsible for half of the recent drop in violent crime.

Gruber and the others acknowledged Levitt and Donahue’s findings, “Finally, we reconsidered the analysis of abortion and crime originally conducted by Donohue and Levitt to incorporate our updated methodological framework. The results of this analysis support the association between abortion and crime, but suggest that it is difficult to associate their finding with selection as opposed to the direct effect of cohort size.”

But, when the Obama administration wanted someone to develop his Health Care plan- he turned to Gruber. Now the Obama DOJ criticizes Ferguson officials for the using the exact same racist ideology. Anyone confused?

Abortionist charged with Medicaid Fraud in court today

Posted in Abortion, Abortion and medicaid fraud, Abortion Clinic Worders, Abortion clinic worker arrested, Abortion complication, Abortion death, Abortion injury, Abortion medicaid fraud, Abortionist arrested, Abortionist Medicaid Fraud, Eric Holder, Medicaid Billing Practices, Planned Parenthood with tags , , , , , , , , on February 14, 2013 by saynsumthn


The Georgia Supreme Court heard an appeal of a pre-trial ruling involving an abortionist accused of illegally using Medicaid funds to perform services associated with abortions. Tyrone Malloy who was involved in the 2009 abortion related death of a 23 year-old patient, was indicted in 2011 by a Georgia DeKalb County grand jury for two counts of Medicaid fraud. The indictment alleges that from 2007-2010, Malloy accepted $131,615 in Medicaid payments to which he wasn’t entitled “because such services were associated with the performance of elective abortions.” The second count alleges that in the same period, Malloy then fraudulently accepted $255,024 in Medicaid payments for “detailed” ultrasounds which had not been performed. If convicted, Malloy could be sentenced to a $10,000 fine or up to 10 years in prison.

Read more here


On March 21, 2008, 23 year old Sherika Mayo, went to Summit Medical Associates in Atlanta, Georgia for the elective abortion of her 25 week unborn child. After the abortion, while in the recovery room, the woman went into cardiac arrest and was transferred to Atlanta Medical Center where she underwent a hysterectomy and bowel repair. Medical records indicate that vigorous blood product replacement was undertaken, but the women coded in the I.C.U. where she died. The Georgia State Medical Board reviewed the case and determined that the abortionist, Tyrone Malloy, “failed to conform to minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice.” His license was reprimanded and while he was ordered to pay a $10,000.00 fine, he was allowed to continue practicing and performing abortions.

A Search for Malloy uncovers his resume reveals he is linked to other abortion clinics:


1985 – Present Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
Assistant Clinical Instructor
1990 – 1997 Atlanta Surgi-Center, Atlanta, GA
Medical Director
1994 – Present Feminist Women’s Health Center, Atlanta, GA
Medical Director
1995 – Present Old National GYN, LLC, College Park, GA
CEO & President
2000 – Present Atlanta Surgi Center, Inc., Atlanta, GA
Chief Operating Officer

And this Search has him saying he is a member of Planned Parenthood:

Malloy PPSHort

Mallory also has ties to Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder- Read story here

Eric Holder Caught Hiding Wife’s Ties to Troubled Abortion Clinic

Posted in Eric Holder with tags , , , on November 14, 2012 by saynsumthn

More Here and here

Abortionist involved in patient death and Medicaid fraud linked to Obama AG Eric Holder

Posted in Abortion death, Abortionist, Abortionist arrested, Medicaid Billing Practices, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 31, 2012 by saynsumthn

Holder’s family papers over his ties to abortion doctor

HUMAN EVENTS By: Troy Anderson and Will Swaim 10/31/2012

Eric Holder Jr.’s family is moving fast and furiously to bury the U.S. Attorney General’s ties to one of Georgia’s most notorious abortion doctors.

Just cleared by an internal report in the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning debacle, the nation’s top lawman now faces allegations that his connection to Dr. Tyrone Cecil Malloy is a conflict of interest that helps explain Holder’s failure to prosecute abortion providers who run afoul of federal law.

Critics say it may also explain why Holder has been eager to prosecute pro-life advocates who counsel women outside abortion clinics.

Documents obtained by Watchdog show that Holder’s wife and sister-in-law co-own, through a family trust, the building where Malloy operated. A Georgia grand jury indicted Malloy on Medicaid fraud charges in 2011. A state medical board twice reprimanded the doctor.

Holder and his wife, Sharon Malone Holder, an obstetric and gynecological doctor at Foxhall OB/GYN in Washington, D.C., failed to respond to several requests for comment.
But reached by phone at her home in Minneapolis, Margie Malone Tuckson, Holder’s sister-in-law, said there’s no link at all — that Fulton County tax records showing the property belongs to her and Holder’s wife “are wrong.”

“I don’t own this property and my sister does not own this property. We are not technically on this deed,” Malone Tuckson said.

However, public documents reviewed by show that the family transferred ownership to a family trust in 2009, eight months after President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

But even the new deed directly names Holder’s wife and sister-in-law as trustees. After inquiries by Watchdog reporters, Tuckson contacted the Fulton County Assessor’s office and asked them to change tax records to reflect the “new” ownership.

But none of these technical changes obscures the Holders’ conflict of interest. Catherine Davis, a founding member of the National Black Prolife Coalition and president and founder of The Restoration Project — a Stone Mountain, Ga.-based pro-life, pro-family organization — said she’s outraged by the revelations.

“There is a clear conflict of interest when the man charged with pursuing those that abuse the system is also one who is engaged in some way with the business,” said Davis, whose organization brought the issue to the attention of Watchdog.

Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, a national pro-life organization based in Wichita, Kan., said the disclosures help him understand why Holder has been targeting pro-life advocates.

In recent months, judges have blocked Holder’s efforts to punish pro-life supporters counseling women outside abortion clinics. In one case, Holder’s Department of Justice agreed to pay Mary “Susan” Pine $120,000 for its filing of an “improper lawsuit” against her, according to a statement by Liberty Counsel, an Orlando, Fla.-based nonprofit legal firm. Pine counseled women on the sidewalk outside a Florida abortion clinic.

“It looks to me like the attorney general and his wife are in business with the abortion industry, which makes a lot of sense and helps explain why (Holder’s Justice Department) is prosecuting pro-lifers and losing the cases around the country,” Newman said.

“They have been attempting to prosecute pro-life people under the (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994), and as far as I know they have lost 100 percent of those cases in the last four years. This (Malone Holder’s property interest) explains his bias. I don’t think it’s a surprise to anybody that Holder and the Obama Administration are extremely biased against pro-life people and in favor of the pro-abortion crowd.”

Fulton County tax records show Holder’s wife and sister-in-law own the building, located at 6210 Old National Highway, College Park, Ga. A statement from the Georgia Department of Law shows the building was home to Old National Gynecology, Malloy’s medical practice devoted to the performance of abortions.

In December 2011, the statement says, a DeKalb County Grand Jury indicted Malloy, Old National’s owner and operator, and his former office manager CathyAnn Edwards Warner on two counts of Medicaid fraud. The indictment alleged Malloy and Edwards accepted nearly $390,000 in federal medical assistance payments for medical office visits associated with the performance of elective abortions and for ultrasound services that were never performed.

Federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions and associated services, except where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or would endanger the mother’s life, according to the statement.

Malloy and Warner refused to enter a plea in the case, arguing the indictment was constitutionally flawed, according to the Georgia Department of Law. On May 2, a judge entered a not guilty plea on their behalf — and then promptly denied their motion challenging the constitutionality of the Medicaid law in Georgia.

Malloy and Warner appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. The defendants’ brief is due by Nov. 5 and the state’s response by Nov. 26.

Attorneys for Malloy and Warner did not respond to requests for comment.

“My concern is Dr. Malloy’s political connections are so high up that he’s going to end up getting off on these charges,” said Michelle Wolven, the lead investigator and researcher for Eagle Watch, an abortion watchdog group in Dallas, Ga. that worked with the National Black Prolife Coalition to uncover the connections between Holder’s wife and Malloy.



A 2009, Georgia Medical Board report indicated Malloy was involved in the abortion related death of a 23 year old patient. ( Read Here)

Other abuses Neglected by Obama Admin:

According to Jill Stanek, pro-lifer Catherine Davis pointed to cases in which activists have sued Planned Parenthood for alleged Medicaid fraud – in Georgia, Iowa, Texas, New York, and Massachusetts – but where Holder’s Justice Department has failed to act.


Abortion doctor accused of Medicaid fraud
A metro-area abortion doctor and his office manager are under arrest, accused of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraudulent Medicaid payments.

A spokesperson for Georgia’s Attorney General says Dr. Tyrone Malloy and office manager CathyAnn Warner took more than $380,000 in payments for ultrasounds that were never done, and elective abortions that were prohibited from use of Medicaid funds. The Attorney General’s spokesman says that is only allowed when the mother’s life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest.

Malloy owns and operates the Old National Gynecology office in College Park, but received the Medicaid payments at his DeKalb County office on Rainbow Drive. A tip from Georgia’s Department of Community Health, which oversees the Medicaid program, launched the investigation.

Channel 2 investigative reporter Jodie Fleischer knocked on the abortion clinic’s locked doors on Monday. No one answered, but the camera captured people peering through the office blinds several times. About an hour later, a string of cars, presumed to be driven by employees, abruptly left, stopping briefly to lock the gate behind them.

A DeKalb County grand jury indicted Malloy and Warner for two counts each of Medicaid Fraud. The charges carry up to ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Malloy was arrested and bonded out of jail last week. Deputies picked up Warner late Monday afternoon.

The clinic’s website says its physicians are well versed in the changing laws of abortion medicine. They also provide a discount for Medicaid patients.

By phone, a receptionist at Dr. Malloy’s DeKalb office told Fleischer to leave a message; that he was in with a patient. He did not return the call. The office manager, when reached by phone, hung up on Fleischer.

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:


Biden to China: “Not Second-Guessing” One-Child Policy
by Steven Ertelt | Beijing, China | | 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 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, Petitioner,
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.
Circuit Judges.

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

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.

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, Petitioner,
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.

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

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

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; JIE JIANG, Petitioners,
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.

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

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

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


ZAI XIANG CHEN, Petitioner,
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.

Circuit Judges.

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

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.

Chen asserts that he is eligible for relief from removal because his
wife was forced to undergo an abortion and to use an intrauterine
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

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.
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”

DOJ supports Muslim teacher’s lawsuit for denial of hajj pilgrimage to Mecca

Posted in Islam with tags , , , , , , , on December 15, 2010 by saynsumthn

The federal government sued a suburban Chicago school district Monday for denying a Muslim middle school teacher unpaid leave to make a pilgrimage to Mecca that is a central part of her religion.

In a civil rights case, the department said the school district in Berkeley, Ill., denied the request of Safoorah Khan on grounds that her requested leave was unrelated to her professional duties and was not set forth in the contract between the school district and the teachers union. In doing so the school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate her religious practices, the government said.

Khan wanted to perform the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia which every adult Muslim is supposed to make at least once in a lifetime if they are physically and financially able to. Millions go each year.

Khan started as a middle school teacher for Berkeley School District 87 — about 15 miles west of Chicago — in 2007. In 2008, she asked for almost three weeks of unpaid leave to perform the Hajj. After the district twice denied her request, Khan wrote the board that “based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj,” and resigned shortly thereafter, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago.

Berkeley School District compelled Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, the lawsuit said.

The government asked the court to order the school district to adopt policies that reasonably accommodate its employees’ religious practices and beliefs, and to reinstate Khan with back pay and also pay her compensatory damages.

In November 2008, Khan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found reasonable cause that discrimination had occurred and forwarded the matter to the Justice Department. The case is the first brought by department in a project to ensure vigorous enforcement of the 1964 act against state and local governments by improving cooperation between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the department’s civil rights division.

HERE is the DOJ Press Release:
Justice Department Files Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Berkeley School District in Illinois
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department today announced it has filed a lawsuit against Berkeley School District, Berkeley, Ill., alleging that the school district violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of Safoorah Khan, a Muslim teacher at McArthur Middle School.

The government’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, alleges that Ms. Khan requested an unpaid leave of absence in December 2008 to perform Hajj, a pilgrimage required by her religion. According to the complaint, Berkeley School District denied Ms. Khan’s request because the purpose of her leave was not related to her professional duties nor was it leave for any of the specific purposes set forth in the Professional Negotiations Agreement between the district and the teachers’ union. The United States further alleges that, because Berkeley School District denied her a religious accommodation, the district compelled Ms. Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, and thus forced her discharge.

The lawsuit is based on a charge of discrimination filed by Ms. Khan with the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigating Ms. Khan’s charge, finding reasonable cause to believe that Berkeley School District had discriminated against Ms. Khan, and unsuccessfully attempting to conciliate the matter, the EEOC referred the charge to the Department of Justice. More information about the EEOC is available on its website at

In the lawsuit, the United States seeks an order requiring Berkeley School District to adopt a policy designed to reasonably accommodate the religious observances, practices and beliefs of employees and prospective employees. In addition, the United States seeks back pay, compensatory damages and reinstatement for Ms. Khan.

“Employees should not have to choose between their religious practice and their livelihood,” said Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “Federal law prohibits employers from treating employees and applicants less favorably because of their religion, and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for the religious beliefs and practices of their employees.”

“The EEOC is committed to ensuring that individuals are protected from religious discrimination at work,” said Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair of the EEOC. “We are pleased to foster this important collaboration with the Department of Justice to enforce the laws that ensure our workplaces are free of bias.”

This is the first lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a pilot project designed to ensure vigorous enforcement of Title VII against state and local governmental employers by enhancing cooperation between the EEOC and the Civil Rights Division.

The filing of the lawsuit reflects the Civil Right’s Divisions ongoing commitment to actively enforce federal employment discrimination laws. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is available on its website at

Violent Pro-choicer throws rock through the window of Pro-Life Leader, Joe Scheidler’s home

Posted in Hate Crimes, Planned Parenthood, pro-choice, Pro-choice law breakers, pro-choice violence, Pro-Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 2, 2010 by saynsumthn

Joe and Anne Scheidler founded the Chicago anti-abortion organization- Pro-Life Action League. they have been involved in pro-life work for many years, and have recently been staging pickets in front of one of Planned Parenthood’s mega centers in Aurora . Ill. Joe Scheidler was called the Green Beret of the pro-life movement by syndicated columnist Patrick Buchanan. His book on his methods of fighting abortion, CLOSED: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion, was updated in 1993, and he has produced the videos Meet the Abortion Providers and Abortion: The Inside Story, featuring former abortionists who are now telling the truth about what goes on in the abortion clinics.

According Eric Scheidler, Joe’s son, “Bricks were thrown through the front windows of my parents’ house in Chicago last night at 2 a.m., with a pro-abort note attached to one.
Is pro-choice violence on the rise?”
just coincidence?” He went on to state, “Last night the Illinois Choice Action Team (state NARAL chapter) held a “clinic escort” training on Chicago’s north side. A few hours late, bricks are thrown through my parents’ windows a few miles away….Let me clarify that I’m not accusing the Illinois Choice Action Team of anything. I can’t imagine their leader, Benita, of doing anything like this or being anything but horrified by it. But I wouldn’t be surprised if someone who attended the meeting got all fired up and decided to raise some hell.”

Here’s the note that came through the window with a chunk of asphalt. It reads (unedited):

We are crazy feminist bitches
who will destroy your sexist

[modified anarchy symbol]

P.S. I’ve had an
Abortion and no
laws would ever stop
me You can’t make
Queen Anne’s lace illegal

According to Eric, “The “no laws could ever stop me” seems redundant, what with the anti-vandalism laws having been ignored. BTW, seeds from Queen Anne’s lace are supposed to be contraceptive (possibly even abortifacient).”

Joe is unavailable as he said he is dealing with police and reporting the incident !

Operation Rescue issued this statement:

Operation Rescue was outraged to learn this morning that the home of long-time pro-life leader Joseph Scheidler was attacked in the middle of the night with bricks of asphalt being thrown through two front windows. One of the bricks contained a threatening note from an obvious abortion supporter bearing a message of hate. The attack occurred around 2:00 A.M.

We denounce in the strongest terms the cowardly violence that shattered the peace of the Scheidler home last night,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We demand that that Attorney General Eric Holder order the Justice Department to launch an immediate investigation into this violent hate crime and to provide the same protections to Joseph and Ann Scheidler as they have in the past for unthreatened abortionists.”

There has been a recent increase in violence against peaceful pro-lifers. In September, 2009, activist Jim Pouillon was brutally murdered as he stood with a pro-life sign in front of a high school in Owosso, Michigan. Operation Rescue’s headquarters in Wichita, Kansas, has been repeatedly vandalized, and staff threatened in recent months. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, sidewalk counselors were threatened by a man at gunpoint and police later discovered a cache of weapons in the man’s vehicle.

Joe and Ann Scheidler are pioneers in the pro-life movement whose knowledge and experience has benefitted everyone who has ever taken a stand for the lives of the pre-born,” said Newman. “Please join Operation Rescue in sending a special Christmas gift to the Scheidler’s today as a show of support and to help defray the cost of repairing the damage to their home.”

Cards and letters can be sent to:

Joe and Ann Scheidler
Pro-Life Action League
6160 N. Cicero Ave.
Chicago, IL 60646

Eric Scheidler has also requested prayer for this person, stating,”pray for the angry woman who smashed out my parents’ windows in the middle of the night in an act of pro-choice violence. Please pray that she will somehow find healing and hope. And please pray that every pro-lifer she meets will treat her with the kind of respect and attentive compassion that she deserves, so she will know that she is loved.”


For My Collection of Pro-Choice Violence – go here and click “Older Entries”

Check back for more details !!!!