Chuan Shi v. Jefferson Sessions, 692 F. App'x 954

Petitioner Chuan Wu Shi, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. without admission in 2009 and conceded removability but applied defensively for asylum and withholding of removal.
Petitioner’s claim rested on his wife’s forcible abortion and subsequent sterilization by Chinese authorities; he was not present when those procedures occurred.
Petitioner testified police searched his home and damaged property while looking for him; he was never detained, physically harmed, or shown to be sought by authorities after 2007.
Petitioner did not show he personally communicated opposition to China’s family‑planning policy or took sustained steps to resist it; he removed his wife’s IUD (to protect her health) and planned (but did not execute) to hide her during a pregnancy.
The IJ denied asylum and withholding; the BIA dismissed the appeal, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether spouse’s forced abortion/sterilization alone can establish asylum based on "other resistance" to China’s family‑planning policy	Shi argued his wife’s forced abortion/sterilization, plus related circumstances, demonstrated resistance sufficient for asylum	Government argued the spouse’s forced procedures, without petitioner’s personal resistance or persecution, are insufficient	Held: The spouse’s forced abortion/sterilization alone is insufficient; petitioner failed to show personal resistance or persecution
Whether petitioner suffered past persecution or has a well‑founded fear of future persecution based on his own actions	Shi asserted the damage to property, removal of wife’s IUD, and plan to hide his wife show cumulative resistance and risk	Government contended evidence showed no personal mistreatment, no detention, no communications of opposition, and no credible ongoing threat	Held: Substantial evidence supports the BIA/IJ that petitioner did not suffer past persecution nor establish a well‑founded fear of future persecution
Whether denial of asylum forecloses withholding of removal	Shi sought withholding of removal as alternative relief	Government noted withholding requires a higher standard and depends on asylum eligibility	Held: Because petitioner is ineligible for asylum, he cannot meet the more demanding withholding standard; withholding denied

Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2010) (spouse of forced‑abortion victim cannot rely solely on the forced procedure; must show personal "other resistance")
Santos‑Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2008) (substantial‑evidence review of agency factual findings)
Henriquez‑Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (standards for judicial review clarifications)
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of legal questions)
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2009) (burden on asylum applicant to establish past persecution or a well‑founded fear)
Salazar‑Paucar v. I.N.S., 281 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (applicant’s burden to prove eligibility for relief)
He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2014) (forced abortion may be part of an "other resistance" claim but is not dispositive)
Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2004) (consider totality of circumstances in persecution analysis)
Korablina v. I.N.S., 158 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 1998) (consider cumulative effect of incidents when assessing persecution)
Khourassany v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (reasonable fact‑finder standard for persecution conclusions)
Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2004) (withholding of removal requires a higher standard than asylum)