Wei Ye v. Attorney General United States
708 F. App'x 75
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Wei Ye, a Chinese national, conceded removability and applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on religious persecution for attending an underground church.
- Ye alleges he was detained, interrogated, kicked, and slapped for seven days after attending church; he did not require medical treatment for bruises.
- Ye testified about a September 2015 raid where other underground church members were arrested; police allegedly sought him afterward and warned of severe punishment if re-arrested. A friend who introduced him to Catholicism was arrested and sentenced.
- Despite these events, Ye remained in China for several months after the September 2015 incident without being harmed and was able to depart China on his own passport.
- The Immigration Judge denied asylum and withholding; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted the IJ’s findings, concluding the mistreatment did not rise to past persecution and Ye lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution.
- Ye petitioned for review; the Third Circuit denied the petition, applying the substantial-evidence standard and finding the agency’s determinations reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Past persecution — severity | Ye: seven-day detention with kicks/slaps was extreme persecution for religious practice | BIA/IJ: mistreatment was regrettable but not "extreme" enough to constitute persecution | Court held agency reasonably found no past persecution |
| Nexus to protected ground | Ye: mistreatment was because of his religious attendance | Agency: either insufficient to show severity; nexus not required once severity fails | Court upheld agency; severity dispositive and agency reasonably applied law |
| Well-founded fear of future persecution | Ye: police sought him after a raid; credible threat and prior warning create reasonable fear | Agency: Ye stayed months in China without harm, no evidence police continued pursuit, left on own passport — undermines well-founded fear | Court held agency reasonably found no well-founded fear |
| Withholding of removal | Ye: same facts support withholding standard | Agency: withholding requires higher showing; failure on asylum claim entails failure on withholding | Court affirmed denial of withholding as derivative of asylum ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Fatin v. I.N.S., 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993) (persecution requires more than unfair or unlawful treatment)
- Kibinda v. Attorney General, 477 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2007) (five-day detention and assault that required stitches did not constitute persecution)
- Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General, 663 F.3d 582 (3d Cir. 2011) (substantial-evidence standard: reverse only if no reasonable adjudicator could reach agency's conclusion)
- Garcia v. Attorney General, 665 F.3d 496 (3d Cir. 2011) (definition of asylum eligibility and protected grounds)
- Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2004) (failure to establish well-founded fear for asylum also defeats withholding claim)