Weiping Chen v. Holder
744 F.3d 527
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Chen, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. as a temporary visitor in Oct 2004 and overstayed; he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- An NTA charged Chen with removability for overstaying his visa; he admitted removability.
- At the IJ hearing, Chen described a 2004 protest against the government, his detention, beating, and subsequent police surveillance.
- Chen alleged government-targeted harm due to his protest and attempts to obtain compensation after market demolition.
- The IJ deemed asylum untimely, found insufficient corroboration for withholding, and concluded he did not meet CAT standards; the Board affirmed these findings; Chen petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether asylum timeliness and extraordinary circumstances are reviewable | Chen argues extraordinary circumstances excused late filing | Board/IJ held filing untimely; ordinary circumstances prevail | Lack of jurisdiction to review asylum timeliness/extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether Chen showed a clear probability of persecution for withholding | Chen asserts persecution tied to political opinion from protest | Record shows no compelled political-opinion persecution; remaining evidence insufficient | Substantial evidence supports denial of withholding |
| Whether Chen is eligible for CAT relief | Chen alleges possible torture if returned to China | Record does not show more likely than not torture upon return | CAT relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bitsin v. Holder, 719 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2013) (jurisdictional bar on reviewing asylum timeliness/extraordinary circumstances)
- Liu v. Holder, 692 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2012) (protest activity may be economic rather than political)
- Marquez v. INS, 105 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 1997) (public protest insufficient to prove political opinion persecution)
- Raghunathan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2010) (need for corroboration when credibility is not sole basis for claim)
- Krishnapillai v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2009) (immigration judge may require corroboration where reasonably obtainable)