Ai Chen v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2202
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Chen and Li, Chinese nationals, married in the US and are parents of two US-born children; they seek asylum and withholding of removal based on alleged future persecution for violating China’s one-child policy and for Christian faith.
- The IJ and BIA denied relief largely relying on the 2007 China Report; petitioners’ credibility was found intact for purposes of asylum analysis.
- Chen entered on a K-1 visa in 2003; Li came to the US in 2001; their children were born in 2007 in the United States while Chen had no legal status.
- Petitioners contend that returning to China would subject them to sterilization or penalties for out-of-plan pregnancies, even though their children were born abroad.
- They also present evidence of Christian house-church persecution and argue they would face arrest or coercion upon return for practicing Christianity.
- The BIA and IJ failed to account meaningfully for contradictory evidence (e.g., 2009 CECC Report, Lin website) and relied heavily on the 2007 China Report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chen and Li have a well-founded fear of future persecution under China’s one-child policy | Chen/Li rely on contrary evidence showing ongoing coercive practices. | Agency properly relied on the 2007 China Report to find no such persecution. | Remanded for reevaluation with additional evidence. |
| Whether petitioners prove persecution on account of Christian faith if returned to China | Li/Chen presented evidence of house-church persecution and credible risk. | Record shows only locale-dependent, not widespread persecution; standard not met. | Denied as to religious asylum. |
| Whether the agency adequately addressed conflicting evidence about coercive population-control practices | CECC 2009 report and Lin website contradict 2007 China Report conclusions. | Agency did not need to reconcile every piece of evidence with the 2007 report. | Remanded to account for contradictory evidence on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (well-founded fear standard for asylum)
- Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113 (4th Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence review framework for asylum findings)
- Gonahasa v. U.S. INS, 181 F.3d 538 (4th Cir. 1999) (State Department reports as probative evidence in asylum cases)
- Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2004) (subjective and objective components of well-founded fear)
- Ji Cheng Ni v. Holder, 715 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2013) (need for agency to account for contradictory evidence; remand guidance)
- Qiu Yun Chen v. Holder, 715 F.3d 207 (7th Cir. 2013) (addressing CECC reports and state-of-record contradictions)
- Li Ying Zheng v. Holder, 722 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 2013) (criticizes exclusive reliance on single country-report)
- Baharon v. Holder, 588 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2009) (requirement that agency explain missing or discounted evidence)