Nadiia Chuchman v. Merrick B. Garland, 4 F.4th 483

Chuchman joined UDAR (an anti-Yanukovych political party) in 2010 as a university student and engaged in meetings, protests, and recruitment.
In Sept 2012 the university dean, under alleged government pressure, warned she could be expelled if she remained politically active; she continued.
At a large rally two months later Berkut police grabbed and struck her with a baton, then detained her for a day and released her without charges.
In April 2013 she was assaulted again at a protest, rendered unconscious, suffered a broken nose and concussion, and was hospitalized three weeks; she subsequently traveled to the U.S. on a J-1 visa.
While she was in the U.S., Ukrainian police served numerous summonses to her dorm and parents ordering her to appear for interrogation; over 40 summonses were in the record through at least 2018.
Chuchman applied for asylum in April 2014. The IJ found her credible but concluded her injuries and encounters did not amount to past persecution and that changed political conditions made future persecution unlikely; the BIA adopted and affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied review, applying the substantial-evidence standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chuchman suffered past persecution	The two police assaults, detention, dean's threats, and repeated summonses cumulatively amount to past persecution	Harm was not severe enough to compel a finding of persecution; summonses could reflect legitimate criminal process; dean's warning was not a threat	Court: Substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ; record does not compel finding of past persecution
Whether she has a well‑founded fear of future persecution / presumption based on past persecution	She fears reprisal from pro‑Yanukovych officials who remain in power; country‑condition evidence of corruption and politically motivated arrests supports future risk; past persecution should create a presumption of future persecution	Transfer of political power (UDAR merged into ruling party) and lack of specific evidence tying current searches/arrests to anti‑UDAR animus make future persecution unlikely; no past persecution proved so no presumption applies	Court: No past persecution proved, so no presumption; country evidence does not compel that she faces future persecution; claim fails

Herrera-Garcia v. Barr, 918 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2019) (articulates deferential substantial-evidence standard for reviewing BIA factual findings)
Minghai Tian v. Holder, 745 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence review of asylum/BIA determinations)
Tsegmed v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2017) (similar detentions and beatings did not compel finding of persecution)
Mema v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 2007) (abduction and beating causing loss of consciousness did not compel persecution finding)
Zhu v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 2006) (beating requiring stitches insufficient to compel persecution finding)
W.G.A. v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2018) (no presumption of future persecution absent established past persecution)