EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION

							                    EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
                       UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
                              NEW YORK, NEW YORK


IN THE MATTER OF:                                         IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

                CHILD                                             File No. -----------
               Respondent.
                                                               Judge Patricia A. Rohan
                                                                 Individual Hearing,
                                                                 September 20, 2006



                             DECLARATION OF EXPERT, PH.D.

In support of CHILD’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT), I, EXPERT, hereby declare under penalty of
perjury that the following statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

                                      QUALIFICATIONS

       1.      I am a litigation consultant for the OFFICE Institute. The OFFICE Institute

provides a full range of trial consulting services including, but not limited to focus groups, mock

trials, and survey research. I received my Bachelor of Science, Magna Cum Laude, with a major

in Psychology, from Florida State University in 1997, my Master of Arts and Doctor of

Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Social Psychology from the University of Nevada, Reno in 2003,

and my Master of Laws, with distinction, in International Law, with a focus on International

Relations, from the University of Kent, in Canterbury England, in 2004. I have been working as

a litigation consultant with the OFFICE Institute since May 2005. I have attached a copy of my

curriculum vitae at Tab 1.

       2.      I am a United States citizen. I currently reside at ADDRESS. I have been

residing in California since 2005.




                                             1
       3.        My research regarding the crackdown on the Falun Gong and the treatment of

Falun Gong practitioners by the government of People’s Republic of China’s (“Chinese

government”) began in 1999. This work has resulted in several presentations and publications,

listed below.

       4.        Throughout the course of my research, I have analyzed the legality of the Chinese

government’s reaction to Falun Gong within the framework of international human rights law,

researching both a domestic and international perspective. Moreover, I have also focused on the

legality of the government’s reaction to Falun Gong within the framework of international

human rights law.

       5.        As a social psychologist with an interest in collective behavior, I have also

examined the Chinese government’s embracement of the Western Anti-Cult Movement, an

organized opposition to new religious movements which it identifies as “cults.” My research has

focused on the extent to which the Chinese government has relied on information supplied by the

Western Anti-Cult Movement to justify the government’s eradication of the Falun Gong and the

persecution of Falun Gong participants.

       6.        I have extensively researched and written about Falun Gong and the Chinese

government’s persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. I have written articles and presented

conference papers on the Falun Gong and the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, including

the following:

       Imposed limitations on freedom of religion in China and the margin of appreciation
       doctrine: A legal analysis of the crackdown on the Falun Gong and other “evil cults.” The
       Journal of Church and State, 47(2), 243-267. (2005).

       Falun Gong and the law: Development of legal social control in China. Nova Religio,
       6(2), pp. 312-331. (2003).




                                               2
       Cult controversies and legal developments concerning new religions in Japan and China.
       In D.H. Davis & G. Besier (Eds.), International Perspectives on Freedom and Equality of
       Religious Belief, Waco: (Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University,
       2002), reprinted in J.T. Richardson (Ed), Regulating Religion Case Studies from Around
       the World. (United States: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2004), pp. 359-380.

       The crackdown on the Falun Gong: Western influence and the development of the anti-
       cult movement in China. Presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
       annual conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. (2002).

       Falun Gong and the law. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of
       Religion, Houston, TX.

       Cult controversies and legal developments in Japan and China. Presented at the annual
       conference on “New Religions,” Heidelberg, Germany. (2001).

       A complete list of publications is set forth in my curriculum vitae at Tab 1.

       7.      I stay current on religious, spiritual, and political developments in China. I

regularly consult Western and Chinese newspapers addressing events in China. I subscribe to a

number of email listservs which help keep me up to date. I consult regularly with colleagues in

the United States regarding religious, spiritual and political developments in China.

       8.      I am not a practitioner of Falun Gong. I have never practiced Falun Gong. I am

not receiving any form of payment in exchange for my service as an expert in this case.

                               SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

       9.      I have carefully read through CHILD’s affidavit that she is submitting in support

of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention against Torture (CAT)

relief. My knowledge of the social conditions in China and Ms. Huang’s credible account of her

experiences and fears of returning to China, lead me to endorse her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

       10.     CHILD’s statements in her affidavit in connection with the dissemination of

Falun Gong literature, the detainment of Falun Gong members, and police actions in connection

with Falun Gong practitioners are consistent with the accounts of other individuals from China


                                             3
who have been accused of practicing Falun Gong and either have been sought out or detained by

the police. Due to the unabated persecution of those individuals that the government believes to

be Falun Gong members, CHILD could be in serious danger of persecution were she forced to

return to China.

       11.     CHILD’s statement that she would be persecuted upon her return to China

because the police consider her to be a Falun Gong member is consistent with my experience and

research. The act of disseminating Falun Gong literature has specifically been deemed a “crime”

by the Chinese government. If CHILD were to be arrested for such an act, she would not be

afforded the right to a fair trial and would likely be imprisoned or sent to a reeducation camp,

where she would face the threat of persecution and physical torture.

       12.     CHILD could not simply relocate to another area of China to avoid the

persecution, because although local police practices may vary slightly, the practice of Falun

Gong is fervently suppressed throughout China. Further, China maintains a strict household

registration system that severely restricts rural and low income Chinese citizens’ ability to

legally change their permanent place of residence. Not only would this system make it difficult

for CHILD to relocate, but the registration process would likely alert local officials to her status

in Fujian Province as a suspected Falun Gong member if she tries to do so.

       13.     CHILD’s statement that she lived with FRIEND is consistent with my research

and experience. It is a common cultural practice in China for parents to illegally work in a city

outside of their permanent place of residence. Because the household registration system links

public services to residential status, children are often forced to remain home to attend local

schools. It is also a commonly known practice, though not necessarily legal, for schools to

charge fees for students attending those schools, even for primary education.




                                              4
       14.     CHILD’s fear that she would likely be detained by the police and persecuted in

connection with her Falun Gong activities upon her return to China is a credible fear. Since the

police were already searching for CHILD before she fled China, there is a strong presumption

that they believe that she is a member of the Falun Gong. The fact that she fled the country

before the police were able to speak with her will further their suspicions that she is in fact a

Falun Gong practitioner, regardless of whether she actually practiced Falun Gong in the past, or

currently adheres to the principles of Falun Gong. Simply denying that she is a Falun Gong

member may not be sufficient for her to avoid arrest, detention, and persecution.


          THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT’S TREATMENT OF FALUN GONG

       15.     The following information is based on my research.

       The Initial Persecution of Falun Gong

       16.     The Falun Gong movement has been the target of nationwide repression since

1999. On April 25, 1999, in an effort to gain recognition as a legitimate spiritual group, more

than ten thousand Falun Gong adherents gathered in Zhongnanahi, home to the majority of the

Chinese government’s leadership. Shortly thereafter, the Chinese government began the largest

crackdown on religion in several decades.

       17.     Within a week of the April 25, 1999 protest in Zhongnanahi, the Chinese

Communist Party (“CCP”) declared the Falun Gong an illegal sect and the massive nationwide

crackdown began shortly thereafter. On July 22, 1999, the executive branch of the government,

the State Council, banned the Falun Gong. This was followed by a notice issued by the Ministry

of Security, a government agency within the executive branch of government, which prohibited

among other things, distributing promotional Falun Gong materials, displaying public marks

promoting Falun Gong, gathering to perform exercises or promotional activities, and



                                              5
participating in sit-ins, petitions, demonstrations and other activities that disrupt the social order.

These executive orders were followed by sweeping anti-cult legislation passed through the

National People’s Congress (“NPC”), which is the highest legislative body in the government.

       18.     Falun Gong practitioners were unable to receive fair trials or proper

representation due to directives passed by various government entities. For example, the

Supreme People’s Court of China, the highest judicial court in China, issued a notice instructing

the lower courts on how to handle Falun Gong cases. The notice labeled the Falun Gong a

political threat to society and urged justices to grasp the heretical character of the group. It also

pointed to the courts’ political duty to punish cult-related crimes and instructed them to ensure

that Falun Gong cases were swiftly condemned. The courts were further ordered to use the

media to publicize Falun Gong cases to maximize the social impact of the trials. In addition, a

directive was issued to lawyers advising them not to accept cases related to Falun Gong,

effectively cutting practitioners off from legal recourse.

       19.     On October, 30 1999, the Standing Committee of the NPC passed the “Decision

on Banning Heretical Organizations and Preventing and Punishing Heretical Activities.” This

statute applied to the Falun Gong as well as other groups labeled as heretics. On that same day,

the Supreme People’s Court of China and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate-a judicial body

that among other things, provides legal oversight over the judicial process-issued a joint

interpretation that criminalized the activities of illegal groups that used religion, qigong, or

similar ideologies to deify their leaders, recruit and control their members and ultimately

endanger society. Violations of the decree included distributing publications, reviving or

continuing the activities of a banned group, spreading malicious fallacies, besieging government

establishments or public places, and disrupting public order. Members of illegal cults who




                                               6
distributed publications could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison without due process of

law.

       20.     The Chinese government used this body of legislation to legitimize its reprisal

against Falun Gong practitioners. Some of the harshest treatment meted out by China’s criminal

and administrative justice system has been directed against practitioners and supporters of the

Falun Gong.

       21.     The severity of the perceived threat and the importance of the campaign to

eradicate the Falun Gong was illustrated in February 2001, when the Chinese government

sanctioned the use of violence against Falun Gong members. This decision was reportedly based

on the conclusion that practitioners who were not beaten were found to be less likely to abandon

the group. According to government sources, practitioners were beaten, shocked with electric

truncheons and forced to undergo unbearable physical pressure, such as squatting on the floor for

days at a time. Falun Gong practitioners were also required to attend study sessions, or

“brainwashing classes,” where Li Hongzhi’s teachings were criticized by former members. The

use of violence at reeducation through labor camps has also been sanctioned.

       22.     Although Jiang Zemin left office in 2003, his successor Hu Jintao, continued the

government’s campaign to eradicate cults such as the Falun Gong. During the 2004 NPC

session, Premier Wen JiaBao, China’s Prime Minister, proclaimed that the government would

expand and deepen its battle against cults, including the Falun Gong.


       The Persecution of Those Individuals Considered to be Falun Gong Adherents Has
       Not Abated

       23.     In the seven years following the April 25th demonstration, more than 100,000

Falun Gong practitioners have been detained. While some were arrested as active participants,




                                             7
others were detained for simply admitting that they adhered to Falun Gong principles or for

supporting the Falun Gong. Although freedom of belief is widely recognized as part of

customary international law, belief without practice is sufficient grounds for arrest in China.

Punishment for such beliefs can range from mandatory study sessions to imprisonment. Physical

and psychological violence have been associated with both forms of punishment.

       24.     A majority of those individuals imprisoned in connection with Falun Gong

activities have never been afforded due process. Rather, most individuals have been summarily

sentenced to reeducation-through-labor camps or prison. Some international observers believe

that about 125,000 of the officially recorded 250,000 people administratively sentenced to labor

camps are Falun Gong practitioners. There is evidence that torture has been condoned as a tool

for punishing practitioners.

       25.     Over the course of the seven years since the Falun Gong was banned as an illegal

organization, the Chinese government has developed a well organized institutional structure to

perpetuate the suppression of Falun Gong participation at both a national and local level. A

government agency with ministerial authority, known as the “610 Office” was created to

undertake this specific task. Branches of the 610 Office have been set up in many cities and

villages throughout China, and in particular, in government agencies, institutions, and schools.

These offices are charged with ensuring that local officials remain loyal to the Chinese

government’s anti-Falun Gong policy.

       26.     Torture continues to be used today as a tool to eliminate support for the Falun

Gong. Beatings with fists, sticks and electric batons are common types of torture employed in

China’s prison system as is forcing detainees to hold themselves in extreme body positions for

long periods of time. Falun Gong adherents were cited as specific targets for this type of torture.




                                             8
       27.     Hundreds of Falun Gong practitioners have also been committed to psychiatric

hospitals, where many have been diagnosed with “evil cult induced mental disorder.” This

diagnosis, which has no scientific basis, has been developed for exclusive use against Falun

Gong practitioners and members of other purportedly evil cults. Independent victims who have

been sent to such facilities have made frequent reference to being: drugged with unknown

medications, tied to hospital beds, subjected to electro-convulsive therapy, denied adequate food

and water, granted limited access to toilets, and required to pay fees for their treatment upon their

release.

       28.     The police - who are given quotas for Falun Gong arrests – continue to detain

individuals suspected of Falun Gong activity, including those individuals that they believe to be

current or former practitioners. With a large proportion of active Falun Gong practitioners

already in custody, the police are likely to focus their attention toward less committed followers

or those with marginal associations to the movement.

       29.     Although a government has some limited discretion to restrict religious practice,

the freedom of belief is recognized in international law under the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, the Declaration of the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and

Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, the International Convention on Civil and Poltical

Rights, and international customary law as a fundamental right that cannot be derogated. When

it comes to unregistered churches or new religious movements, such as the Falun Gong, the

Chinese government has superceded its limited discretion by cracking down on both freedom of

belief and freedom to practice. Chinese citizens are persecuted for simply admitting that they

believe in Falun Gong principles. CHILD’s affidavit demonstrates that she has been identified

as a Falun Gong adherent. If she is returned to China, she will likely become a target of the




                                              9
government-sponsored persecution against the Falun Gong that has been taking place in China

for the last seven years.

      Evaluation of CHILD’s Statements Regarding her Fear of Persecution by                  the
Chinese Government

        30.    In connection with the preparation of this affidavit, I have read CHILD’s

application for asylum, and the addendum to her asylum application, including her personal

affidavit.

        31.    CHILD states in her affidavit that she fears future persecution if she returns to

China. In my opinion, it is likely that CHILD would be subject to persecution if she returned to

China. CHILD has a credible fear of persecution based upon three facts. First, her participation

in passing out Falun Gong literature is an act that the police associate with Falun Gong

practitioners who openly oppose the July 22nd ban. Second, the fact that she avoided the police

and fled the country will support a presumption that she is a Falun Gong participant. Third, the

police, having been alerted to her participation disseminating Falun Gong literature, and having

already searched for her several times, will be likely to arrest her upon her return, even if she

returned years later. If the police and the Chinese government already believe that CHILD is a

Falun Gong participant, she will be subject to persecution throughout China because Falun Gong

is strongly suppressed nationwide. Further, the household registration system greatly inhibits

CHILD’s ability to legally move to a different area in China without detection. For all of the

reasons stated in this affidavit, I strongly believe that CHILD risks immediate future persecution

by the Chinese government.


       I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this
__ day of August, 2006.




                                             10
                                                 EXPERT, Ph.D.


Signed and sworn before me this ___ day of August 2006.



              ________________________
              Notary Public




                                         11
CV ATTACHED (redacted)