Chengmin Yan v. Sessions
693 F. App'x 49
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Chengmin Yan, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on pro-democracy activities he engaged in while in the United States and fear of persecution upon return to China.
- The IJ denied relief on March 11, 2014; the BIA affirmed on July 24, 2015. Yan petitioned this Court for review; the petition was denied.
- Yan submitted evidence including three online articles published under his name and photo, testimony about distributing fliers and being photographed at protests, and a late letter from his wife claiming police awareness of his activities (the letter was excluded as untimely).
- The agency found no past persecution and concluded Yan failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution either individually or via a pattern-or-practice affecting similarly situated persons.
- The agency also found country-condition evidence showed persecution of high-profile CDP leaders and recruiters but not ordinary U.S.-based CDP members who returned to China.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yan established a well-founded fear of individual persecution | Yan: online publications, protest photos, and his wife’s letter show Chinese authorities know his activities and would persecute him | Gov’t: evidence is speculative; wife’s letter was untimely and excluded; publications/photos insufficient to show likely awareness or targeting | Court: Affirmed—agency reasonably found fear speculative; wife’s letter properly excluded; publications/photos inadequate |
| Whether Yan established a pattern or practice of persecution of similarly situated CDP members | Yan: ordinary CDP members who joined abroad are persecuted upon return | Gov’t: evidence shows persecution of prominent leaders/recruiters, not ordinary low-level members; anecdotal testimony uncorroborated | Court: Affirmed—record supports distinction; no systemic/pervasive harm to ordinary members shown |
| Whether denial of asylum requires denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief | Yan: asylum denial does not foreclose higher-burden forms of relief | Gov’t: failure to show a well-founded fear also fails the higher standards for withholding and CAT | Court: Affirmed—because asylum denied, Yan necessarily failed to meet higher withholding/CAT burdens |
| Whether certain due process and employment-related claims were preserved/exhausted | Yan: raised additional claims including employment-based arguments and due process errors | Gov’t: claims were unexhausted before the BIA or meritless | Court: Declined to consider unexhausted employment claim; held remaining due process claims unexhausted/meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court reviewed both BIA and IJ decisions for completeness)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for immigration decisions)
- Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2007) (issue exhaustion doctrine required)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (well-founded fear and pattern-or-practice framework)
- Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (speculative fears unsupported by record are not objectively reasonable)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight of evidence lies largely within IJ’s discretion)
- Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007) (pattern-or-practice requires systemic or pervasive harm)