Lishou Wang v. Loretta E. Lynch
804 F.3d 855
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Wang, a 51-year-old Chinese citizen, seeks asylum and withholding of removal for resisting China’s population-control program.
- An immigration judge found Wang not credible about the core incident—beating by officials and his wife’s contraceptive implantation—due to labeling the procedure as tubal ligation.
- Wang’s wife was surgically implanted with Norplant (contraceptive implants) in the upper arm after officials beat Wang and threatened sterilization.
- Wang testified he understood the procedure as sterilization regardless of the label, but the IJ credited only the label discrepancy to reject credibility.
- The Board upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, and Wang petitioned for review, arguing error in the credibility ruling and in the alternative persecution analysis.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit grants the petition and remands for reconsideration of credibility and for determination of “other resistance” under the coercive population-control program.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility error based on labeling rather than substance | Wang argues the IJ misread his description of the procedure, discrediting his testimony. | IJ relied on a labeling discrepancy (tubal ligation vs Norplant) to undermine credibility. | Credibility error; remand for proper credibility assessment. |
| Whether Wang’s resistance constitutes past persecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) | Wang may be persecuted for resisting coercive population-control measures, not just abortion/sterilization. | Persecution requires specific acts; the statute was interpreted too broadly or narrowly. | Remand to decide: (a) whether his interference qualifies as other resistance and (b) whether the harm (beating) amounts to persecution. |
| Scope of “other resistance” under § 1101(a)(42) | Population-control coercion includes implanting a contraceptive device as part of policy, not just abortion/sterilization. | Only certain actions (abortion/sterilization) are per se persecutory. | Remand to assess whether Wang’s actions against officials satisfy “other resistance.” |
Key Cases Cited
- Chen v. Holder, 604 F.3d 324 (7th Cir. 2010) (persecution based on resistance to coercive population program; per se persecution where wife forced sterilization/abortion)
- Jin v. Holder, 572 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2009) (resistance framework under § 1101(a)(42))
- Cheng v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 623 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2010) (examples of ‘other resistance’ to birth-planning policies)
- Chen v. Holder, 705 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2013) (persecution scope includes harm such as beatings and detention)
- He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2014) (conducts discussed as not constituting overt persistent resistance)
- Kone v. Holder, 620 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2010) (remand for factual determinations on eligibility for relief)
- Tawuo v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2015) (credibility and persecution standards in asylum rulings)