Lay v. Sessions
691 F. App'x 685
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Dicky Alexander Lay, an Indonesian national and ethnic Chinese Buddhist, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on past harms and fear of future persecution in Indonesia.
- Lay described five incidents over a ten-year period: school-age harassment (bloody nose, being spat on) and later physical assaults (including an attack to his temple); injuries required no formal medical treatment.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on December 9, 2015; Lay petitioned this Court for review.
- The agency found Lay’s reported incidents, even cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution and that he failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.
- Lay argued there is a pattern or practice of persecution against ethnic Chinese Buddhists in Indonesia; the record contained limited country conditions materials, lacking evidence of systemic persecution of Chinese Buddhists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lay suffered past persecution | Lay: five violent/abusive incidents cumulatively amount to persecution | Gov: incidents were isolated, non-severe, amounting to harassment | Court: No; incidents not sufficiently severe to be persecution |
| Whether Lay has well-founded fear of future persecution via individual targeting | Lay: his history and identity make him likely to be singled out | Gov: no evidence he would be individually targeted | Court: No; failed to show individual risk |
| Whether a pattern or practice of persecution exists for Chinese Buddhists in Indonesia | Lay: country conditions show systemic targeting of religious/ethnic minorities, including Chinese Buddhists | Gov: record lacks evidence of systemic persecution against Chinese Buddhists; materials show mixed incidents affecting various groups | Court: No; inadequate evidence of a pattern or practice |
| Relief under withholding/CAT based on the same facts | Lay: same facts support withholding and CAT relief | Gov: lacking predicate showing of persecution or risk | Court: Denied withholding and CAT relief consistent with asylum finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir.) (standards of review for immigration appeals)
- Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.) (non–life-threatening violence may constitute persecution)
- Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir.) (persecution must be more than harassment)
- Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (consider cumulative significance of incidents)
- Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir.) (persecution is an extreme concept)
- Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir.) (beatings without lasting injury may not be persecution)
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.) (requirements for well-founded fear analysis)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (methods to establish well-founded fear: individual or pattern/practice)
- Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.) (evidence required to show systematic persecution)
- Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.) (BIA’s pattern-or-practice standard and its application)
- Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (denial where record fails to show pattern or practice of persecution)