*1 marijuana. evening turned that for their matter will be remanded to the district At that Kane told them that he had court for point, resentencing accordance with heroin, been unable to resell the and that Booker. marijuana
he had neither the he prom money to repay.them.
ised them nor the again and
Bruce Mussare left without inci Monday evening
dent. It was not until Taylor. Bruce and Mussare assaulted events, sequence
From this of a reasonable
jury agreement could find an to defer re payment of the debt. See United States v. Ling ZHANG, Xiu Petitioner 1282,
DiPasquale, 740 F.2d Cir. 1984) (“A agreement may tacit implied be GONZALES1, Attorney Alberto from the surrounding circumstances the debt.”).4 such, the creation of the General of United As there States America, Respondent was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that an extension of credit No. 03-2111. made, had been either because the initial United States Court of Appeals, payment awas loan or because an agree Third Circuit. to postpone payment ment aof claimed debt could be inferred. Argued Jan. 2005. Opinion April filed
C.
Appellant challenges his sentence under Booker, -,
United States v. 543 U.S. (2005).
125 S.Ct.
light of the determination of judges
this court sentencing that the appel- issues
lant raises are best determined instance,
District Court the first we will
vacate the and sentence remand for resen-
tencing accordance with Booker.
D. reasons,
For the foregoing the judgment the District Court entered on August
200 will be AFFIRMED as to the convic-
tion. The sentence will be vacated and the urges courts, however, reject Bruce reasoning us to DiPasquale federal is still DiPasquale, noting Circuit, good that several other federal law in this and we are not See, e.g., courts reasoning. holding have criticized its inclined agree- to revisit its that an Stokes, United States v. (5th repayment may ment defer be inferred Cir.1991) DiPasq- (rejecting from the reasoning surrounding circumstances the debt. uale noting disagreement among the regarding federal interpretation courts pursuant 1. Substituted Ap- to Federal Rule of 894). Despite disagreement among 43(c)(2). pellate Procedure *2 N. (argued), Theodore Bardavid
Joshua Cox, Cox, Theodore N. New Law Office of York, NY, for Petitioner. Keisler, Jentzer, D. Terri D. Peter
Lyle
Scadron,
(argued), Office
Hillel R. Smith
J.
Division,
Litigation, Civil
Immigration
Justice,
Department
Washington,
a forced abortion and
U.S.
demanded
she
D.C.,
Respondent.
for
or her husband be sterilized to prevent
any
country’s
further violations of the
one-
ALITO, McKEE,
SMITH,
Before:
policy.
child
Judges.
Circuit
*3
13,
At a preliminary hearing
July
2000, Zhang’s lawyer gave
op-
the IJ and
THE
OF
COURT
OPINION
posing counsel a number of documents to
ALITO,
Judge.
Circuit
corroborate these claims. See id. at 50-51.
Ling Zhang,
Petitioner Xiu
a native and The materials included birth certificates
China,
People’s Republic
citizen of
husband,
Zhang,
for
and her three
by
for review of an order
petitions
children;
certificate;
Zhang’s marriage
(“BIA”)
Immigration Appeals
Board of
de-
receipt
indicating that Zhang was fined
nying asylum
withholding
of removal.2
removing
3000 Yuan4 for
an intrauterine
argues, among
things,
She
other
that the
(“IUD”)
permission
device
without
and an-
(“IJ”)
Immigration Judge
failed to recon-
other receipt showing
Zhang
was
the documentary
cile his decision with
evi-
“attempt
give
fined 5000 Yuan for
birth
produced.
grant Zhang’s
dence she
We
secretly.” Id. at 103-04. The latter re-
review,
petition for
vacate the order of the
26,
ceipt was dated March
App.
1996.
at
BIA,
BIA
and remand to the
for further
104.
proceedings consistent with this Court’s
poten-
also submitted two other
in Liu v.
a Birth Surgery Control Certificate from Changle City stating that Zhang “was con- I. ducted with a Operation Abortion and IUD 1999, In November arrived in the 15[, installation on March at 1996] our United immigrant States without valid Clinic.” at 102. This document is Appendix (“App.”) visa. Joint at 190. An affixed with a seal. The second is a notice asylum officer that she had a credi- found addressed to and her husband from persecution repatriated ble fear of to the the “Birth Control Office of Shouzhan People’s Republic of China and issued her translated, Town Changle City.” As a Notice to Appear before an IJ so that notice states: asylum. she could for apply Id. March 2000, Zhang application asy- filed an for According to the investiga- result of our lum, removal, withholding tion, you and relief un- gave boys two over birth else, der Article III of the United Nations Con- somewhere which na- violated the Against vention Torture.3 alleged family She tion’s planning policies severely. family planning Therefore, that Chinese authorities according penalty to the reg- had, among things, subjected other her to ulation of family planning policies, Zhang's argument counsel at Foreign admitted oral States Affairs Reform and Re 1998, 105-277, preserve appeal that he structuring did not for a claim Act of Pub.L. No. (codified Against under the United Nations Convention 112 Stat. 2681-761 at 8 1231). Torture. U.S.C. Yuan, "RMB,” Against The United Nations Convention Tor 4.The also known as is worth Cruel, ture and Degrading approximately Other Inhuman or roughly 12 cents. There are Punishment, 10, 1984, dollar, Treatment or per Dec. 8.2 Yuan so 3000 Yuan is about $366, implemented 1465 U.N.T.S. the United $608. and 5000 Yuan is about part of the official record that thirty-six thou- were pay a fine you must him, thirty days. the before but it is also conceivable that [I]n Yuan within sand meantime, you go must to the merely he meant that the documents operar the sterilization hospital regarded been submitted and not that he local for Otherwise, ivill part [we] tion. them as of the record. beforce[d] operation, and the sterilization complete severely as luell.
punish
II.
added). This doc-
(emphasis
at 111-12
pp.
hearing
At her merits
on October
with a seal.
ument is also affixed
family
Zhang testified that Chinese
furnished these
Zhang’s
After
counsel
subjected her to a forced
planning officials
*4
during
July
preliminary
documents
abortion,
her
on three
fitted
with
IUD
lawyer asked if
government’s
hearing,
occasions,
that she
separate
and demanded
comply with 8
counsel intended to
Zhang’s
prevent
or her husband be sterilized to
any
and “have
documents
287.65
C.F.R.
any
pregnancies.
future
The IJ denied
by the U.S. consulate Chi-
authenticated
Zhang’s petition
entirely
based
on an ad-
respond-
counsel
App.
Zhang’s
at 51.
na.”
credibility
App.
determination. See
verse
at that
no intention to do so
ed that he had
(“Maíam,
any
your
at
I didn’t
believe
interjected:
The IJ then
point.
testimony.”).
Zhang’s
He
that
explained
one of
me a second. That’s
Bear with
story appeared “scripted” and “unbelieva-
troubling regulations
the more
story nor
ble” because neither the overall
imposes
require-
that
regulation
it’s a
pieces
plausible. App.
certain
seemed
get things authenti-
upon people
ment
to
mentioning
perceived
12. After
several
at
think,
reality, I
is that it’s
cated. The
Zhang’s testimony,
inconsistencies in
actually
impossible
get
to
that
almost
really in
nothing
that “there is
IJ observed
I’ll
requirement.
But there is a
done.
Profile that would
Department’s
the State
at the time of
make a decision on that
are
us to
that forced abortions
lead
believe
going
I’m not
to make a
hearing.
very
excep-
than a
rare
anything other
decision now.
at
continued:
App.
tion.”
17. He.
at
App.
that
abortions]
There is evidence
[forced
however,
occurred but there is also evidence
IJ,
revisited the
have
never
landed in the United
that meteors have
the documents had been
question whether
fact that there’s evi-
referred
States. I mean the
authenticated. The IJ
adequately
to some-
something happened
of his oral
dence
to
documents at the outset
happened
that it
Ex-
else doesn’t mean
also has
opinion, stating: “The Court
to
a back-
[Zhang]. There has
be
documents
to
hibit 4 which consists
some
form a
conditions that
ground
country
to corrobo-
by
respondent
submitted
story plausible.
make the
at 10. But
context and
App.
claim.” See
rate her
in and
going
to come
that he When someone
the IJ meant when he said
what
it’s not
say th[ey]
a forcible abortion
unclear. It
the documents is
“ha[d]”
“Well,
pos-
say,
guess
to
that’s
enough
documents
possible that he meant that the
states,
copy, with the addi-
pertinent part:
ized.... The attested
regulation
5. This
any,
be
foreign
if
must
tional
certificates
chapter, an
any proceeding under this
In
Foreign
by
in the
Ser-
therein,
certified
an officer
entry
when ad-
record or
official
States,
United
stationed in
vice of the
any purpose, shall be evidenced
for
missible
thereof,
kept.
foreign country where the record is
by
publication
by an official
287.6(b)(l)-(2).
§§
so author-
8 C.F.R.
copy attested
an officer
cution,
proof
some
and she would be entitled
going
I’m
to want
sible.”
presumption
of a rebuttable
just possible,
more than
benefit
that it’s
per-
has a
fear of further
chance that this
she
well-founded
there is a substantial
if
happened.
secution
removed
China. See 8
thing,
fact,
1101(a)(42)(A)
(B);
§§
U.S.C.
8 C.F.R.
added).
con-
App.
(emphasis
at 9
The IJ
208.16(b). Similarly,
or-
the document
basically
long
have a
shot
cluded
“we
dering Zhang or her husband to submit
here,
abortion,
is a forced
happening
which
procedure
pain
a sterilization
of severe
very poor testimony.
and we also have
So
Zhang’s
corroborate
punishment would
together
you
things
when
combine the two
testimony that
the Chinese authorities
in a
you
way
succeeding
have no
case
with forced sterilization
threatened her
App.
like this.”
at 17-18.
her claim that
has a
and would bolster
she
Zhang’s
acknowledged
The IJ
again
well-founded fear
she would
be
“testimony
with
quite
consistent
if
threatened with forced sterilization
she
asylum application,”
he never
written
but
country.
sent
to her native
were
back
explained why the documents that she
significance
Because of the
that the doc
credibility.
submitted did not bolster her
question
uments
would have
are
fact,
impossible
it is
*5
accurate,
authentic and
it is obvious that
any
precisely
tell
what role—if
docu-
—the
given
the IJ must have
them reduced
played
analysis.
ments
in the IJ’s
weight
weight
or no
at all.
Liu v.
Cf.
obviously
The IJ
did not take the docu-
(3d
529,
Ashcroft, 372 F.3d
532 n. 3
Cir.
ments at face value.
If authentic and ac-
2004)
evidentiary
an
rul
(discussing
IJ’s
curate,
powerfully
corroborate
ings on two
abortion certificates
“are
Zhang’s claims.6 The abortion certifícate
ambiguous as to whether he intended to
would show that she had an abortion on or
give
weight’
the certificates ‘little
or ‘no
15,
conjunc-
March
about
Viewed
”).
weight.’
explained
The IJ never
which
certificate,
26,
tion with this
the March
options
why
of
chose or
these
he
he did so.
1996,
fining Zhang
“attempt
notice
for an
give
secretly”
give
appeal,
one-para-
birth
would
rise to a
On
the BIA issued a
strong
in-
It
graph
adopted
inference
the abortion was
affirmance.
the IJ’s de-
voluntary.
single
And of course if
cision and
of
added
sentence
its
abortion,
undergo
light
questions
by
forced to
that would own. “In
of the
raised
subjected
past perse-
credibility,
mean that
respondent’s
she was
the authentici-
Cir.2004).
asylum,
eligible
withholding
6. To be
for
must show
"The standard for
of
"refugee,”
than,
to,
that she is a
which means that she
higher
removal is
albeit
similar
unwilling
is
or unable to return to China
asylum.”
Ashcroft,
Lukwago
standard for
v.
persecution
"because of
or a well-founded
157,
(3d Cir.2003) (citation
329 F.3d
182
race,
persecution
fear
on account of
reli
omitted).
applicant
must show that fu
gion, nationality, membership
particular
in a
persecution
political opinion
ture
based on
or
group,
political opinion.”
social
8 U.S.C.
likely
other
not” to
factors
"more
1101(a)(42)(A).
person
§
who has been
"[A]
208.16(b).
showing
§
occur. 8
"A
C.F.R.
pregnancy
undergo
forced to abort a
or to
persecution gives
past
rise to a rebuttable
sterilization,
involuntary
per
or who has been
presumption of a well-founded fear of future
undergo
secuted for failure or refusal to
such
Ashcroft,
persecution.” See Chen v.
381 F.3d
procedure
other
or for
resistance to coer
221,
(3d Cir.2004) (citations omitted);
224
8
population
program,
cive
control
shall be
1208.13(b)(1);
C-Y-Z-,
C.F.R.
In re
21 I &
persecuted
deemed
have been
on account
915, 918,
(B.I.A.
N Dec.
155 (3d 477, 242 Ashcroft, F.3d 483 she Abdille v. documents that supporting ty of the Cir.2001). Elias-Zacarias, v. (citing INS ], failure respondent’s and the presented [ 478, 1, 112 812, 117 502 U.S. 481 & n. S.Ct. lack of corrobo- explain the adequately (1992)). However, L.Ed.2d 38 “remand is ], not meet her respondent did ration [ where ... we have made a eligibility appropriate to establish proof burden (e.g., regarding the ad legal determination requested.” the reliefs for evidence) fundamentally missibility of balancing of facts and evidence upsets III. agency’s which an decision is based.” upon review the ad This Court must (3d 529, 534 Ashcroft, Liu v. 372 F.3d the final re on which ministrative record Cir.2004). Ashcroft, Leia v. 393 See also Ashcroft, See Gao v. moval order is based. (3d 427, Cir.2005); Diallo v. F.3d 434-35 (3d Cir.2002). The “final 271 F.3d 299 (2d Cir.2000). INS, 232 F.3d 287 of the usually order” to be reviewed Liu, rejection unauthenti improper “the when Immigration Appeals, but Board of infect cated abortion certificates the IJ “that it affirms- the simply the BIA states determination,” credibility the adverse ed reasons set forth decision for the IJ’s Ashcroft, justifying a remand. Chen v. decision, effec IJ’s (3d Cir.2004). 215, 226 F.3d BIA’s, and, accordingly, tively becomes decision.” a court must review IJ’s IV. 549 n. v. Abdulai Cir.2001) INS, noted, (quoting possible Chen it is previously As Cir.1996) (internal (1st citations F.3d case refused to admit the the IJ omitted)). Here, extent that gave to the and thus them question documents *6 treat opinion, the IJ’s we adopted weight. possible BIA no It is that the IJ also of the Board.7 opinion opinion as the but found that admitted the documents 434, 439 Ashcroft, they Miah v. 346 F.3d weight See were entitled less Cir.2003) (3d decision (reviewing accepted “both the at face appear would to merit BIA BIA” because the how- explanation, of the IJ and the further value. Without opinion); ever, parts of the IJ’s can be sustained. adopted approach some neither (“When Abdulai, 2 F.3d at 549 n. 239 IJ, reviewing court
BIA defers to an A. must, logic, review the IJ’s as a matter the exclusion cannot sustain We BIA’s deci to assess whether the decision explanation an the documents without appropriate.”). sion to defer was may ruling. The IJ have the basis for the for failure to com excluded the documents
Ordinarily, we will affirm IJ’s 287.6, § reasonable, with 8 C.F.R. which states by ply supported decision if it is be evi that “an official record shall substantial, evidence on the probative thereof, publication by denced an official considered as a whole. See Balasu record author INS, by an so by copy 161 attested bramanrim officer added). Cir.1998). reg This (emphásis Id. standard dic ized This deferential copy, attested with up “[t]he ulation adds findings that the “must be tates IJ’s if any, foreign additional certificates only supports held unless the evidence in the For- conclusion, be certified an officer compels it.” must contrary but Therefore, adopted it was or relied insofar as below to the IJ’s all references upon by the “the IJ's BIA.” opinion should be understood as States, different those that the findings quite the United sta- from eign Service country where the IJ reached. foreign in the tioned court, however, kept.” Id. Our record is B. § 287.6 is not
recently held that “8 C.F.R. exclusion, and is not the an absolute rule of possible grounds Several for the authenticating records exclusive means of IJ’s treatment of the documents come to Liu, judge.” immigration before an possibility mind. One is that the IJ Leia v. F.3d at 533. See also thought the cross-examination of (3d Cir.2005) (remanding F.3d 434-35 provided doubting a basis for for consideration under Liu where IJ authenticity. government documents’ found that 287.6 was the exclusive attorney Zhang why some of the asked documents).8 to authenticate Ac- means Chinese “notarial certificates” that she had cordingly, exclusion of the documents on February submitted were dated legal ground this would be error. Because which was after she entered the United possibility of the real that the IJ excluded hearing States. See at 89-92. The question pursuant to this the documents transcript reports Zhang’s an unhelpfully vacate the order of the regulation, we must (indiscernible) “My just helped swer as: BIA and remand for clarification on this govern me to obtain it.” Id. at 90. The point. lawyer apparently ment’s believed that helped said her husband had noted, possible, It also as that the IJ certificates, her obtain the notarial and the rely did not on 8 C.F.R. 287.6 but found lawyer began questioning Zhang thus for some other reason or reasons husband, hiding about her who was in any appre- were not entitled to documents Fujian from province. kilometers When weight. opin- ciable But because the IJ’s government lawyer eventually re reasoning ion not disclose his does original question turned to his about who matter, impossible discharge it is for us to certificates, helped Zhang acquire the whether, responsibility our as determine transcript records fol Zhang’s answer as contends, the evidence in the record my lows: “That’s husband did.” Id. compels the conclusion that she faces a *7 thereafter, Shortly again, when asked probability of or at least has a well-found- Zhang replied, my “No. not It’s husband persecution ed fear of if she is removed my got himself. I said husband’s dad noted, People’s Republic. the As the docu- just I say my them.... never husband. I issue, accepted genuine ments at as my on keep saying my that’s hus dad— accurate, strongly Zhang’s corroborate tes- dad.” band’s Id. Thus, timony. they unless were excluded procedural exchange, for some undisclosed reason This as translated from Foo (the propriety obviously of English, which we can- Chow to is muddled at best. It is review) they say or unless properly supposed discrep- were difficult to that this untrustworthy, ancy testimony deemed to be unreliable or in in enough itself to 396, Ezeagwuna Ashcroft, see v. 325 impugn authenticity F.3d of the birth certifi- (3d Cir.2003), Moreover, they compel 405-06 could in cates the record. even if it Moreover, 962, (7th Cir.2003) compliance (faulting even if with 8 C.F.R. F.3d 966 n. 3 mandatory, explanation addressing 287.6 were some IJ for not whether submitted copy already for the exclusion of the documents would still of a letter is "not certified” pursuant be at “appears needed because least some of the docu- to 287.6 it to be sort”). Georgis Ashcroft, imprinted ments bear seals. v. 328 with an official seal of some Cf.
157 evidence, did, certificate and the docu- consideration issue is the abortion plainly premature. fine for removal of relating to the ments involuntary and the threat the IUD V. directly were never discred-
sterilization ited. reasons, For these we hold that BIA order of the must be vacated and the possibility, which was discussed Another Liu, case must be remanded. See 372 is that the IJ relied on a argument, at oral 534; F.3d at Abdulai v. 239 F.3d 14, Report, April dated Department State (3d Cir.2001) 542, (remanding 555 “[b]e- 1998, that documentation from cer- noting explanation cause the failure BIA’s China, including “documents parts tain impossible makes it for us to review its verify control purportedly birth rationale”). may “BIA proceed measures,” subject widespread fabri- “is it respect any remand as does with at 166. Accord- cation and fraud.” evidentiary question, evaluating issues of Report, Fujian province in the ing to this relevance, materiality, probity, and the lived, “no reli- particular, where general requirements process.” due Id. relation- prove documents existed to able (citations omitted). at 534 n. 9 See also Indeed, Report at 166-67. ships.” Id. (1st INS, Yongo v. 30-31 notes, General in the when Consulate Cir.2004) (enumerating methods of authen- that officials region requested 1993 tication). If it determines that the docu- Fujian suspected fake docu- investigate excluded, must explain ments were it ments, investigated of the 109 that were 66 If it basis for exclusion. decides to be incorrect or fake.” “were determined admitted, square them with were must App. at the IJ’s decision. seem, we report might Persuasive as the counseled wariness re previously have McKEE, concurring. Circuit Depart “wholesale reliance on the garding fully join my colleagues’ opinion. I country reports.” ment of State’s Chen However, my I separately express write (3d Ashcroft, 376 225-26 Cir. F.3d Immigration Judge’s rea- concern with the 2004) (citations omitted) that the (holding particularly matter. am soning validity of “erroneously rejected BIA Immigration Judge troubled because the on noth abortion certificates based [two] corroborating Zhang’s ignored evidence country report”). than the See ing more going out of his apparently claim while INS, Lin v. F.3d also way problems Consequent- to find with it. Cir.2001) INS, F.3d (quoting Galina v. reads ly, explain, as I shall IJ’s Cir.2000)). (7th ap A cautious “a of flawed sound bites progression like case, justified in this where proach *8 impression that was gives [the IJ] that the relies on data from and de Report claim, ways” deny Zhang’s looking for topic to the only single paragraph votes adjudicate it. Dia v. rather juncture, At “documentation.” this Cir.2003). however, unduly speculative it would be Zhang’s testimony: that The IJ states question to address the whether this for us appears to be justify right beginning, at the country report alone could refusal indica- script. is subtle but it’s an any weight to the documents at This give to follow. I’m refer- tion of what in this case. Until we know whether was issue oral so, respondent, her and, country ring to when the degree to what the outset, T testimony, right at the of the stated report figured in the IJ’s evaluation all, attorney represented by from the fami- an who would persecution have suffered are not refugees ... real have discussed her case with her before ly planning.’ ‘persecution’ around the word throwing hearing.9 easily could have real- the She In the cases where the that often ... describing that the treatment she was ized lacking story because the persecution is under “persecution” was tantamount ‘persecution’ tends is not true the word However, immigration our laws. for rea- more and more. to be used record, apparent sons that are not this that possibility. to this testimo- the IJ never allowed for App. 13. The IJ’s reaction account, seems to have ny, by his own Although expect Immigra- we don’t “right beginning” him at the predisposed ways tion to search for to sustain an Zhang being that was not to conclude testimony, expect alien’s neither do we the supporting truthful. the evidence Given judge ways to search for to undermine and claim, explanation, some her absent Zhang’s belittle it. If the reference to IJ’s unsupportable. simply reaction is “persecution” only single use of were the ex- Zhang “persecution” used the word troubling aspect opinion, of his it could be testimony. entire actly during once her However, hyperbole. dismissed as the around the word “throw[ ] She did not troubling. rest of the IJ’s is also single ... ”. instance in that often “persecution” which referred to is as she implausible The IJ believed it was that a follows: “relatively woman as humble and [has who
Question: Why you leave did China? little education” as as] would be perse- I have suffered Answer: Because government’s familiar with the Chinese family planning. cution mistreatment those Chinese citizens Question: fami- you Can describe what leaving return to China after for the ly planning However, is? App. United States. 13-14. explain why IJ never bothered to he dis- just They Answer: forced me to under- inserted, very possibility counted the real go abortion and have the IUD not go willingly. Zhang’s but do position someone could learn government’s policies through “word upon lines 12-17. Based Indeed, given of mouth.” the absence of a “persecution,” reference to IJ conclud- press typical free so of authoritarian re- “right beginning” ed from the gimes, information official mistreat- about being untruthful. He thereafter likely spread ment of citizens would more through jaundiced eyes viewed her claim Yet, by word of mouth than written despite documentary evidence word. substantial concluded, citing any that corroborated it. sup- IJ without evidence, porting “came about Zhang’s “persecution” reference to someone, ‘knowledge’ proba- hardly remarkable even if that word is not bly smuggler ar- someone who part daily vocabulary. Zhang may of her ranged for her to come forward with this well have become familiar that word with asylum, told her to throw that one in.” and learned its to her claim dur- relevance See app. nothing 13-14. That ing into short of hearings course *9 was, of “persecution.” Zhang speculation. issue after rank certainly pro- discussing It would have been less than the case with her beforehand. fessional to call his client as a without witness
159 perform though abortions willing manufac- even The IJ assumed illegal. practice the was then in testi- personae” [sic] tured a “dramatis who removed IUDs the doctor fying about Today we need look no further able to re- purportedly he was many open drug American cities air where by the prosecution and avoid move them residents, though prosper markets even that res- skeptical The IJ was authorities. drugs being police, and even know are sold the doctor’s community in her knew idents United States in example, there. For hidden yet identity the remained identity, Miller, (D.C.Cir.1999), F.Supp.2d 6 The IJ reasoned: to the authorities. Drug refers to the Enforcement the court refusing to on a Agency renew a lease respondent “a lot of According to the property nearby open drug because- of air who was knew about” this doctor people explained: markets. The court “This in area taking particular out the IUD’s ... property building is an older At no one in the Apparently, of China. point Drug the Enforcement Adminis doctor. office knew about this planning n Ironically, tration was the tenant. the him but the Everybody else knew about DEA did not renew the lease because of officials, count, didn’t the people who activity open drug narcotic in air markets putting know that as were seem to v. Ed United States in area.” women he was down Cf. IUD’s into monds, (D.C.Cir.2001) 55, 57 240 F.3d all out. One could taking them street (“The ... a vet 21-year officers included punishment a just imagine what kind of in that neighborhood who had worked eran if the rest person like that would suffer years. is intermittently [It] for some severity allegations of these about many ‘open air notorious as one of the are to policies control China the birth drug infesting capital markets’ the nation’s be believed. Baptiste, States v. ...”); United 264 F.3d App. 15. (5th Cir.2001) (“The government again, given the evidence corrobo- Once ‘open evidence at trial that an presented claim, skepticism of that rating Zhang’s his Seventh drug air market’ existed it naivé. testimony is as unfounded as 1990s.”); early beginning Ward as follows: reasoning proceeds The IJ’s Gibbs, States v. United a doc- Zhang said she and others knew of (counsel (D.C.Cir.1990) objected when the removing The illegally tor was IUDs. who “up was witness testified the defendant though not been arrested even doctor had street, drug air mar open around J. doing. There- villagers knew what he was ket”). logic that was According to the fore, must exist and the doctor not claim, air deny Zhang’s open these used to manufactured him for her testi- must have simply do not exist because drug markets mony. them. would know about officials is, however, trou- an even more There course, knowing way had no
Of IJ Judge’s Immigration of the bling aspect eventually prose- the doctor was whether analysis, I can judge’s decision. Given Moreover, improbable not that cuted. if his here help not but wonder decision illegal proce- perform that a doctor could Zhang’s par- influenced his view Even dures and not be arrested. enting. stated: own, every society as advanced as our like a children. This is only she has three is arrested. One need So “law breaker” in the bush. in the hand versus two in the bird years ago, that a few women recall more in the bush is [Zhang] To two to find doctors States were able United *10 totally ignored proof,” judge in the hand. ed “some than the one important to proof Zhang which she can that had introduced corrob- has three children She (1) claim. This included birth of, can and orate her care which she cherish take husband, Zhang, certificates for her and upbringing, or she could part be of their (2) children; receipt indicating three really interested in her say, “No. I’m not Yuan for just Zhang I’ll was fined 3000 re- I think I’ll do is that. What (3) moving permission; an without worry three kids and I’ll IUD discard those showing may receipt in another some other kids who about “attempt give 5000 Yuan for birth somehow or other. fined future materialize (4) because, secretly;” Surgery a Birth Control Cer- quite I’m how sure Changle City stating tifícate from my happens to be Chi- way, husband Zhang “was conducted with a Abortion speak. I here and But let’s na as sit installation on March Operation the kids that I have and and IUD forget about (5) Clinic;” 15[, at our and a notice worry 1996] we’ll about kids that don’t addressed to and her husband from probability have and in all never will the “Birth Office of have.” Control Shouzhan Changle City,” Town which instructed App. 18. go or her husband to to the local fairness, possible the IJ sterilized, or, hospital to be be forced to be Zhang’s testimony summarized in this sterilized, Zhang already had chil- because asy explain why manner to he found her dren. leaving lum claim inconsistent with her rejected Zhang’s testimony The IJ also China, three children in and that this un relying that her IUD fell out without However, credibility. given dermined her any medical or scientific evidence. He Judge’s willingness ignore so much simply concluded that IUDs cannot fall out of this record that is consistent with noticing. App. without an individual 19. Zhang’s testimony, help I can not but be are, however, There sources that indicate played concerned that such a bias a role in possibility. this is a distinct this decision. The issue before the http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ See: was, all, Zhang qualified after whether as a pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birth “refugee,” quality parenting, not the of her control/pub-Deontraception-iud.xml.10 presence or her home. Perez- See uncommon, (“Although can be ex- (1st IUD INS, Alvarez v. Cir. your knowing without pelled it. This is 1988) (in considering of persecution claims likely happen during your period. most “highly assumptions it is advisable to avoid good your It pads idea to check regarding way oper other societies tampons daily you are menstruating while ate.”). out.”). see the IUD has fallen In overlooking the evidence corroborat- ing Zhang’s testimony, explained: Finally, explains skepti- the IJ that he is IJ going Zhang’s testimony only someone is to come cal about “[w]hen say they ... I’m forcible abortion farmers are allowed to have a second child going proof support to want some that it’s more is no for that “[t]here just possible, anywhere Department that there is a substan- in what the State However, thing hap- App. tial chance that tells us.” 17. there is ” pened Though .... nothing Department Report he demand- the State 10. Last viewed March *11 Immigration a different hearing a before testimony either. undermines Judge.11 be faulted because can not fails to Country Report Department
State every aspect of China’s upon
touch Moreover, common sense policy.
child that, that an to the extent suggest
would by an regime supported is
authoritarian al- might well economy, officials
agrarian help to more than one child farmers low America, of UNITED STATES land, to deny permission but with v. labor the extra that did need families III, MUSSARE, J.J. I not know if John Cioffi Frankly, food. do produce a/k/a however, submit, not. I is true or Mussare, III, Appellant John Cioffi I common sense and with it is consistent No. 02-3301. only to illustrate possibility mention the of his gone to have out that the IJ seems Appeals, United States Court Zhang’s testimony incredible. way to find Third Circuit. Thus, to state that important I think it May Argued 2004. matter for further remands this the BIA April Filed Immigration Judge, before an proceedings Bureau see the wisdom hope that the will to a IJ. This IJ’s referring different specific, on a co “not based decision was but, instead, reason, spec based [ ]
gent
ulation, unsup an otherwise conjecture, or Dia, F.3d opinion.”
ported personal how Accordingly, I do not see that would hearing
Zhang can receive appearance fairness and the
insure the just result if the so crucial to
impartiality by the same IJ. ultimately decided
case is Supreme Court observed
As Offutt U.S., 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 348 U.S. (1954), high func perform its
L.Ed. satisfy way, “justice must
tion in the best justice.” In order appearance here, must have that result
achieve that meteors Zhang's there is also evidence remanding curred but importance 11. The States." in the United have landed Immigration fur- case to a different excerpt by yet another judge ther demonstrated what the meant I have no idea all, have, apparent In an the IJ’s oral decision. after fallen from Meteors comment. sarcasm, States, documentary attempt despite I don't understand how at and the United existence, undergone proof of their undermines corroboration that fact abortion, "[tjhere Zhang's why corroborated judge quipped, it is relevant nor forced have oc- claims. abortions] forced [that evidence