Qing Zheng v. Lynch, 662 F. App'x 91

Petitioner Qing Zheng, a Chinese national, appealed the BIA’s September 17, 2015 decision affirming an IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
Zheng alleged past detention and a beating by family-planning/officials tied to her Christian religion and continued religious practice as grounds for asylum.
The IJ found Zheng detained and beaten but concluded her testimony lacked specific injury details and she required no medical care; the BIA affirmed (excluding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding).
Zheng failed to produce corroborating evidence of detention or of continued religious practice in the U.S., despite such evidence being reasonably available.
Country-conditions evidence showed tens of millions of Christians in China practice in unregistered churches and tolerance varies by locality; no record evidence of persecution in Zheng’s home province.
The agency denied asylum and withholding because Zheng failed to prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

Issue	Zheng’s Argument	Lynch’s Argument	Held
Whether Zheng established past persecution based on detention/beating	Beating while detained by officials rose to persecution warranting asylum	Beating was minor; Zheng gave insufficient details and needed no medical care, so not persecution	Denied; agency reasonably found treatment did not rise to persecution
Whether Zheng’s testimony required corroboration	Zheng argued testimony could suffice if credible	Government argued petitioner failed to provide available corroboration and testimony lacked detail	Denied; agency permissibly relied on lack of corroboration given insufficient specifics
Whether Zheng has a well-founded fear of future persecution for religion	Zheng claimed continued religious practice would subject her to persecution	Government pointed to national/local variation and lack of evidence of risk in her province; Zheng gave no corroboration	Denied; objective evidence did not show individualized risk or local pattern of persecution
Whether withholding of removal/CAT relief follow from asylum claim	Zheng sought relief contingent on asylum findings	Government argued failure on asylum/fear claims defeated related relief	Denied; without asylum/well-founded fear, withholding and CAT relief not established

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA modifications of IJ decisions)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for immigration appeals)
Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006) (non–life-threatening violence can constitute persecution)
Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2006) (persecution must rise above mere harassment)
Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir. 2011) (beatings during detention not per se persecution; sufficiency-of-harm analysis)
Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011) (persecution is an extreme concept; not all offensive treatment qualifies)
Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2009) (applicants must provide corroboration when available and testimony lacks detail)
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (well-founded fear requires both subjective and objective components)
Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (need to show local enforcement/pattern where country conditions vary)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding of removal contingent on showing of past persecution or clear probability of future persecution)