Feng Cheng Wang v. Attorney General of the United States

Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Judge of the United States Court of*
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 06-4207
FENG CHENG WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of An Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(No. A70-122-460)
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 27, 2008
Before: McKEE, RENDELL and TASHIMA , Circuit Judges*
(Filed: June 27, 2008 )
OPINION
TASHIMA, Circuit Judge.
Feng Cheng Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board
of Immigrations Appeals (“BIA”) decision, upholding the adverse credibility finding of
the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and ordering him removed. For the reasons that follow, we

-- 1 of 4 --

We have jurisdiction over orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Abdulai2
v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2001).
2
will deny the petition for review.2
I.
Because we write primarily for the benefit of the parties, we need not set forth the
factual or procedural history except as necessary to inform our discussion. Wang is a
fifty-year-old native of China. He entered the United States in 1993, but his wife and
four children remain in China. He claims to be a victim of his country’s coercive family
planning policy and to fear persecution due to his opposition to that policy. His sister
and brother-in-law were both forcibly sterilized. Wang alleges that his wife was
sterilized in 1997 and that she has gone into hiding to avoid fines related to violation of
the district’s two-child policy.
In 1995, an IJ found Wang not credible and therefore denied his application for
asylum and withholding of deportation, but granted Wang voluntary departure. After an
unsuccessful appeal, Wang remained in the United States in violation of the IJ’s
voluntary departure order. In 2002, the BIA granted Wang’s motion to reopen his case,
due to a change in the law surrounding asylum claims based on population control
policies. In 2005, an IJ again found Wang not credible and ordered him deported. The
BIA dismissed Wang’s appeal, finding that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was
not clearly erroneous. The BIA reasoned that Wang had failed to provide any

-- 2 of 4 --

3
explanation rebutting the finding by the American consulate general’s investigative
report that the sterilization certificate and illness certificate Wang submitted were
fraudulent. The BIA further concluded that, because Wang failed to meet the lower
burden of proof required for an asylum claim, he also fell short of meeting the
heightened standard required for withholding of removal and for relief under the
Convention Against Torture.
“Where, as here, the BIA issues a decision on the merits and not simply a
summary affirmance, we review the BIA’s, and not the IJ’s, decision.” Chavarria v.
Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508, 515 (3d Cir. 2006). We must uphold the BIA’s determination if
it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole,” and we will reverse only if Wang’s evidence would compel a
reasonable factfinder to determine that Wang has a well-founded fear of persecution in
his home country. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “[A]liens have the burden to establish their eligibility for asylum
through credible testimony.” Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 592 (3d Cir.
2003).
The BIA found that, even if the arguments raised by Wang regarding the adverse
credibility determination were accepted, the adverse credibility determination was not
clearly erroneous because of the fraudulent documents submitted by Wang pertaining to

-- 3 of 4 --

Because Wang’s application was filed before the REAL ID Act’s effective date of3
May 11, 2005, the Act’s provisions regarding credibility determinations, codified at 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B), do not apply to this case.
4
events at the heart of his claim. “We look at an adverse credibility determination to3
ensure that it was ‘appropriately based on inconsistent statements, contradictory
evidences, and inherently improbable testimony . . . in view of the background evidence
on country conditions.’” Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 249 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting In
re S-M-J- (Interim Decision), 21 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 1997)) (ellipsis in original). The
BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, including
the unrebutted finding that Wang submitted fraudulent documents in support of his claim
and the numerous inconsistencies between Wang’s testimony and his affidavits.
II.
For the reasons set forth above, we will deny Wang’s petition for review.

-- 4 of 4 --