Min Yong Huang v. U.S. Attorney General
774 F.3d 1342
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Min Yong Huang, a Chinese national and practicing Christian, was arrested during a rural church service in August 2009; police detained him three days, beat him for refusing to identify fellow worshippers/pastor, and recorded bruises.
- Upon release he was forced to sign a statement promising not to attend the church; police later destroyed the church interior and confiscated religious materials; police visited his family after his departure and asked him to report if he returned.
- Huang fled China and entered the U.S. in October 2009; he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on religious persecution.
- The immigration judge denied relief (without an adverse credibility finding). The BIA affirmed, concluding Huang’s injuries, considered cumulatively, did not rise to past persecution, and denied asylum and withholding.
- Huang appealed to the Eleventh Circuit arguing the BIA failed to consider non‑physical, religion‑specific harms (e.g., disruption of worship, confiscation of religious materials) in its past‑persecution analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA properly considered all forms of religious harm in finding no past persecution | Huang: BIA relied only on physical injuries and failed to account for cumulative, religion‑specific harms (breakup of service, confiscation, coercive signed promise) | Government/BIA: injuries (detention and beatings) were not severe enough to constitute past persecution; relied on political‑persecution precedents | Remanded: Court vacated and remanded because BIA’s explanation focused on physical injuries and does not show whether it considered non‑physical, religion‑specific harms per Shi; BIA must clarify/evaluate cumulatively |
| Whether Huang established a well‑founded fear of future persecution (and entitlement to withholding) | Huang: past persecution (if found) would give rise to presumption of future persecution | Government: no showing of past persecution, so no presumption; argued insufficient evidence of future persecution | Not reached on merits: Court declined to decide because resolution depends on BIA’s reassessment of past persecution on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Shi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 707 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding interruption of private church, confiscation of bibles, coercive promise, and detention can constitute religious persecution and requiring consideration of cumulative, religion‑specific harms)
- Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (political‑persecution context: short detention and non‑serious physical injuries did not constitute past persecution)
- Delgado v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 487 F.3d 855 (11th Cir. 2007) (political‑persecution context: threats and severe beatings may still fall short of persecution depending on severity)
- Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for BIA decisions and plenary review of statutory interpretation)
- Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2006) (petitioner bears burden to prove refugee/asylum eligibility)