Yanan Sai v. Sessions
679 F. App'x 64
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Yanan Sai, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after alleged beatings and threats in China and after posting online criticisms of the Chinese government from abroad.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Sai petitioned the Second Circuit for review.
- Sai testified to multiple beatings while detained and claimed police later visited/threatened his family because of his criticism of the government; his wife submitted letters describing police visits.
- The IJ made adverse credibility findings (noting inconsistencies in dates between Sai’s testimony and his wife’s letters); the BIA relied on those findings in rejecting his claims of future persecution.
- The agency concluded Sai’s harms were retributive (over a commercial dispute) rather than motivated by actual or imputed political opinion, and found no showing that the Chinese government was aware of his online posts.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both the IJ and BIA decisions and denied the petition for review, affirming denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Sai's Argument | Sessions' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sai suffered past persecution on account of political opinion | Sai: beaten in detention and harmed for political criticism; harms should be considered cumulatively | Sessions: harms were retribution for discarding employer’s fruit/ commercial dispute, not political | Denied relief — substantial evidence supports agency finding harms were not on account of political opinion |
| Whether agency failed to consider cumulative harm | Sai: agency ignored cumulative nature of multiple beatings | Sessions: agency’s factual finding stands; cumulative claim insufficient | Court need not decide; remand would be futile because outcome would not change |
| Whether Sai established well‑founded fear of future persecution | Sai: posted critical blogs abroad; others have been targeted; police visits to family show government awareness | Sessions: Sai failed to show the government knew or was likely to learn of his writings; credibility issues undermine evidence | Denied — agency reasonably found Sai did not show government awareness and IJ’s adverse credibility finding was sustainable |
| Whether Sai met CAT standard (more likely than not to be tortured) | Sai: risk of torture upon return based on threats and prior harm | Sessions: insufficient evidence of government awareness or of likelihood of torture | Denied — record does not compel conclusion that torture is more likely than not |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA opinions together)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for immigration decisions)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (futility of remand when outcome would not change)
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (requirements for well‑founded fear when no past persecution)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (need to show authorities are or will be aware of applicant’s activities)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for deferring to adverse credibility findings)
- Alam v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2006) (no remand where error would not change outcome)
- Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard for CAT relief)