Ya Ling Wu v. U.S. Attorney General, 688 F. App'x 825

Petitioner Ya Ling Wu, proceeding pro se, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after converting to Christianity in the U.S.; the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial and Wu petitioned for review.
Wu asserted a well-founded fear of future persecution in China based on her Protestant Christian beliefs if returned to Fujian Province.
Country conditions evidence (including the U.S. State Department’s 2012 IRFR) showed tens of millions of Protestants in China, variable local tolerance, no specific incidents reported for Fujian, and legal protections against religious employment discrimination.
Wu submitted a notice from a village committee and letters from her mother and a person named Xin; the IJ and BIA gave those documents little or no weight due to lack of authentication and the authors not being subject to cross-examination.
The IJ and BIA relied on State Department reporting (which incorporated some SARA material) and found Wu failed to prove either past persecution or a reasonable possibility of future persecution; they also denied withholding of removal and CAT relief for failure to meet the higher burdens.

Issue	Wu's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Wu established a well-founded fear of future persecution based on religion	Wu contended conversion to Christianity and supporting documents show reasonable possibility of persecution in China	Country conditions and lack of reliable, authenticated evidence show no reasonable possibility of persecution in Fujian	Denied — substantial evidence supports finding no well-founded fear
Whether the IJ/BIA could rely on State Department and SARA-derived country reports	Wu argued IJ relied on unreliable SARA website material	Government argued reports (IRFR) are reliable and the BIA may rely on State Department reports	Held that reliance on the IRFR (including the SARA-derived material included there) was proper
Weight to give village notice and letters submitted by Wu	Wu asserted the Notice and letters corroborate threats/knowledge of her activities	Government pointed to lack of authentication, possible fraud in Fujian documents, and that authors weren’t cross-examined	Documents entitled to little or no weight; IJ/BIA permissibly discounted them
Whether withholding of removal and CAT relief were warranted	Wu argued same facts supported higher standards for withholding and CAT	Government argued Wu failed to meet more-likely-than-not standard and offered no evidence of torture	Denied — higher standards unmet; no evidence of past torture or likelihood of torture on return

Mejia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 498 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.) (defines "reasonable possibility" standard for fear of future persecution)
Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (subjective and objective components of well-founded fear)
Reyes-Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir.) (BIA entitled to rely heavily on State Department reports)
Li Shan Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 672 F.3d 961 (11th Cir.) (unauthenticated documents lack veracity and are entitled to no deference)
Mu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 745 F.3d 1140 (11th Cir.) (panel upheld giving little weight to unauthenticated/fraud-prone Fujian documents)
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir.) (withholding of removal requires showing that persecution is more likely than not)
Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir.) (standards of appellate review for BIA factual findings)
D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 388 F.3d 814 (11th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard and affirming BIA if supported by reasonable, substantial, probative evidence)
Mendoza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 327 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir.) (court may reverse only if record compels reversal)