Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-25-2004
Chen v. Atty Gen US
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-2978
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Chen v. Atty Gen US" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 982.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/982
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-2978
GUI CHUN CHEN,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A73-046-823)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 1, 2003
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 25, 2004)
OPINION OF THE COURT
SCIRICA, Chief Judge.
Deportation proceedings were initiated under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)(A) against Gui
Chun Chen, a native citizen of China who entered the United States illegally. The
Immigration Judge found Chen removable and denied his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and voluntary departure. On June 19, 2002, the Board of
Immigration Appeals issued an affirmance without opinion. Chen filed this petition for
review. We held the case c.a.v., pending the outcome of Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228
(3d Cir. 2003) (en banc). Under Dia, we will deny Chen’s petition and affirm the BIA’s
order.
I
On July 24, 1996, the INS issued an order to show cause, charging Chen as
deportable for having entered the United States without authorization. Chen sought relief
in the form of political asylum, withholding of removal, or alternatively, voluntary
departure. Chen based his application for asylum on China’s coercive population control.
The Immigration Judge found Chen’s testimony “inconsistent with the written
applications and question[ed] the credibility of [Chen’s] claim.” Accordingly, the
Immigration Judge denied all of Chen’s claims for relief. Chen appealed to the BIA, and
under the streamlining provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7), it affirmed the Immigration
Judge’s decision without opinion, stipulating that the Immigration Judge’s decision was
the final agency determination.
2
Chen appeals challenging the legality of the streamlining regulations and
questioning whether it was lawful for the BIA to decide to affirm the Immigration
Judge’s order without opinion for his case.1
II
Chen challenges the streamlining regulations’ affirmance without opinion
procedures. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7). We upheld the validity of the streamlining
provisions in Dia, 353 F.3d at 245 (“[T]he streamlining provisions and the BIA’s
issuance of an [affirmance without opinion] . . . did not violate either the INA or the
Constitution.”). We further held: “[T]he fact that the review is done by one member of
the BIA and that the decision is not accompanied by a fully reasoned BIA decision may
be less desirable from the petitioner’s point of view, but it does not make the process
constitutionally ‘unfair.’” Id. at 243-44. Accordingly, Chen’s facial challenge to the
streamlining provision fails.2
III
Chen urges us to review whether it was lawful for the BIA to streamline his case.
The BIA’s decision to apply the streamlining regulations to a particular case is a matter
committed to its discretion. But where the BIA adopts the Immigration Judge’s decision
1
We have jurisdiction over orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
2
To prevail in a facial challenge to a regulation, a petitioner “must establish that no set
of circumstances exists under which the [regulation] would be valid.” Reno v. Flores,
507 U.S. 292, 301 (1993) (internal quotation omitted).
3
as its own, we review the merits by reviewing the Immigration Judge’s decision as the
final decision of the agency. See Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2002).3
The Immigration Judge’s determination that Chen was not eligible for asylum must
be upheld if “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (internal
quotation omitted). Under this deferential standard, the findings must be upheld unless
the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, “but compels it.” Id. at n.1
(emphasis in original). Pure questions of law concerning the INA are reviewed de novo.
Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 2000). Alleged due process violations are also
reviewed de novo. Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir. 2000).
Here, the record shows that the Immigration Judge’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence, and his legal conclusions are correct. Particularly, the record
supports the Immigration Judge’s conclusions that Chen failed to establish that his wife
had been forcibly sterilized. The record also supports the finding of certain
inconsistencies in Chen’s application and testimony. Moreover, there is no evidence that
3
As the Seventh Circuit noted, “[I]t makes no practical difference whether the BIA
properly or improperly streamlined review of [petitioner’s] case. Since we review
directly the decision of the [immigration judge] when a case comes to us from the BIA
pursuant to § 1003.1(a)(7), our ability to conduct a full and fair appraisal of the
petitioner’s case is not compromised, and the petitioner’s due process rights are not
violated.” Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2003) (footnote omitted).
4
the Immigration Judge violated Chen’s due process rights by failing to adequately
consider all relevant documentary evidence. We find no error.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny Chen’s petition and affirm the BIA’s
order.
5