Xiuping Jiang v. Sessions
691 F. App'x 691
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Xiuping Jiang, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on fear of persecution for practicing Christianity (attending churches in the U.S. and intending to in China).
- An Immigration Judge denied relief in October 2014; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed in February 2016. Jiang petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
- Jiang offered limited evidence of her religious practice in the U.S., submitted unsworn letters from relatives in China, and presented country-report evidence about religious restrictions in China and Fujian province.
- The agency found no past persecution and concluded Jiang failed to show either individualized targeting or a nationwide pattern or practice of persecution of Christians that would give rise to a well-founded fear.
- The BIA/IJ gave diminished weight to unsworn, interested-witness letters and relied on country reports showing regional variation in enforcement of religious restrictions.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ and BIA decisions, upheld the denial of asylum, and declined jurisdiction over Jiang’s claim challenging the government’s refusal to support a joint remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jiang showed she would be singled out individually for persecution if returned | Jiang argued Chinese authorities either know of her Christian practice (via family) or are likely to learn of her U.S. or future activities | Gov’t argued Jiang provided no evidence authorities know of her or are likely to learn of her activities; letters were unreliable | Court held Jiang failed to show individualized risk; agency reasonably discounted her evidence |
| Whether there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in China (so Jiang would be included) | Jiang argued Christians face systemic persecution nationwide and she is similarly situated to those persecuted | Gov’t argued evidence showed regional variation and lack of systemic, nationwide persecution, especially in Fujian | Court held Jiang did not establish a pattern or practice; agency reasonably relied on country reports showing variation |
| Whether denial of asylum also forecloses withholding of removal and CAT relief | Jiang contended she met asylum standard and thus higher standards should be considered | Gov’t argued failure to meet asylum standard means higher burdens for withholding/CAT also unmet | Court held because asylum was denied, Jiang necessarily failed to meet the higher standards for withholding and CAT |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review refusal to support a joint remand to the BIA | Jiang sought review of government’s refusal to consent to joint remand | Gov’t invoked prosecutorial discretion and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) to bar review | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review that claim under § 1252(g) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions)
- Zheng v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 277 (2d Cir.) (well-founded fear is subjective fear that is objectively reasonable)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (methods for proving well-founded fear; pattern-or-practice framework)
- Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.) (speculative fears unsupported by record are not objectively reasonable)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir.) (need to show authorities are aware or likely to become aware of applicant’s activities)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (IJ’s discretion to weigh documentary evidence)
- Mufied v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.) (discussion of pattern-or-practice standard)
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (local variation in enforcement can defeat pattern-or-practice claim)
- Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (affirming no pattern-or-practice where persecution was not nationwide)
- Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.) (asylum denial bears on withholding/CAT relief burdens)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (U.S.) (prosecutorial discretion and limits on judicial review)