Qi Deng Chen v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-2156
QI DENG CHEN,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General
of the United States,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board file no. A76-280-480 )
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 22, 2004
BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and ROSENN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 23, 2004)
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on before this court on Qi Deng Chen’s petition for review of a
final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated April 7, 2003, affirming, without
opinion, a decision of an immigration judge denying his applications for asylum,

-- 1 of 2 --

2
withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Chen relief in an oral decision followed
by a written order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). As Chen
acknowledges, see petitioner’s br. at 12-14, our standard of review is deferential both as
to the law and the facts, though it is somewhat more expansive on legal issues. See
Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587, 591 (3d Cir. 2003); Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242
F.3d 477, 483 (3d Cir. 2001).
In considering this matter we are aware that since Congress amended the definition
of “refugee” in 1996 to include persons who are subject to, or opponents of, coercive
population control programs, federal courts have undertaken the difficult task of
determining which types of resistance to such programs merit protection through refugee
status. See, e.g., Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Here we have
reviewed this matter and have concluded that the record supports the immigration judge’s
finding that Chen has failed to establish persecution arising from resistence to a
population control policy. Rather, any punishment of him would be by reason of his
altercation with a public official. We will not stretch INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(42)(A), to include such conduct to be a “political opinion” entitled to protection.
The petition for review will be denied.

-- 2 of 2 --