Cheng Xi Li v. Attorney General United States
705 F. App'x 54
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Cheng Xi Li, a Chinese national, sought asylum in the U.S. based on conversion to Christianity and fear of religious persecution if returned to China.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Li credible but denied asylum, concluding she failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- At the merits hearing Li waived direct examination; two pastors testified but did not confirm proselytizing activity by Li in the U.S.
- Li submitted sworn statements and a church letter claiming proselytizing activity, but the IJ found her U.S. church involvement limited and not in leadership roles.
- Country reports showed uneven enforcement in China: underground churches exist and enforcement is sporadic and often targets church leaders rather than rank-and-file congregants, particularly in Fujian province.
- Li appealed, arguing the IJ and BIA erred in (1) predicting she would not proselytize if returned, (2) engaging in unauthorized factfinding, and (3) allowing factfinding errors to taint other harm findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Li would proselytize if returned | Li argued her statements, sworn affidavits, and church letter show she will proselytize on return | IJ/BIA argued record evidence shows limited church involvement and no leadership or proselytizing in U.S. | Court held record does not compel finding Li will proselytize; IJ’s conclusion supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether BIA engaged in unauthorized factfinding | Li contended BIA improperly weighed and discounted her affidavits and letter | Government/BIA asserted it reviewed and lawfully affirmed IJ’s factual findings without new factfinding | Court held BIA did not engage in improper factfinding; it lawfully reviewed and sustained IJ’s findings |
| Whether agency factfinding errors tainted other harm findings | Li claimed any factfinding errors infected other determinations about severity of harm | Government argued no error in core findings so collateral claims fail | Court declined to reach collateral-attack issues because no error found in primary factfinding |
| Whether Li showed well-founded fear of persecution warranting asylum/withholding | Li argued she faces serious risk based on religious practice and country conditions | Government argued (and IJ found) enforcement in China is sporadic, targets leaders, and record lacks evidence of escalating punishment or severe harm | Court held Li failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable possibility of persecution; asylum and withholding denied |
Key Cases Cited
- I.N.S. v. Elias‑Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (standard for substantial evidence review of asylum facts)
- Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587 (3d Cir. 2003) (describes the extraordinarily deferential substantial‑evidence standard)
- Lin‑Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (substantial‑evidence review; upholding agency findings supported by record)
- Fatin v. I.N.S., 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993) (defines persecution as severe harms: threats to life, confinement, torture, extreme economic restrictions)
- Valdiviezo‑Galdamez v. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011) (well‑founded fear requires subjective fear plus objective reasonable possibility of persecution)