Tao Chen v. U.S. Attorney General
704 F. App'x 881
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tao Chen, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after protesting perceived corruption and unfair court treatment following a traffic-accident injury.
- Chen alleges he received threatening phone calls, was arrested during a protest, detained four days, beaten by police (blows to face, arms, legs, back), fined, and placed on house arrest and weekly reporting.
- He recovered only part of his civil judgment; his mother died (he attributes stress from the dispute).
- Chen claims ongoing police attention to his family in China and fears future persecution for opposing local corruption.
- The IJ denied relief; the BIA affirmed. Chen petitioned for review in the Eleventh Circuit, arguing past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, and likelihood of torture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chen suffered past persecution on account of political opinion | Chen: detention, beatings, threats, fines, and economic loss stemming from protesting corruption amount to persecution | Gov: incidents were isolated/minor, unsupported by medical/economic proof, and do not meet "extreme" persecution standard | Denied — record does not compel finding of past persecution |
| Whether Chen has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on political opinion | Chen: police continue to threaten/visit his wife; authorities are looking for him because he opposed corruption | Gov: limited evidence of ongoing targeting; family remains in China unharmed; anti-corruption enforcement exists | Denied — objective record does not show a reasonable likelihood he would be singled out |
| Whether Chen is entitled to withholding of removal (more likely than not standard) | Chen: prior mistreatment and ongoing threats make future persecution more likely than not | Gov: cannot meet higher burden absent showing qualifying asylum claim or stronger proof | Denied — higher standard unmet because asylum claim fails |
| Whether Chen qualifies for CAT relief | Chen: would likely be imprisoned and tortured if returned | Gov: no evidence of likelihood of torture or government acquiescence; country conditions do not show targeted torture for his profile | Denied — record lacks proof it is more likely than not he would be tortured |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyashchynska v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 676 F.3d 962 (11th Cir. 2012) (BIA v. IJ decision-review rules)
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (appellate scope and substantial-evidence review)
- Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (persecution requires more than isolated harassment)
- Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (insufficient evidence of severity of mistreatment)
- Mu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 745 F.3d 1140 (11th Cir. 2014) (economic sanctions constitute persecution only if they cause severe economic disadvantage)
- Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (showing objective reason to fear individualized future persecution)
- Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2004) (CAT requires more-likely-than-not risk of torture)