Yong Le Chen v. Sessions
706 F. App'x 729
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Yong Le Chen, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after alleged punishment for violating China’s family planning policy.
- Chen testified he was detained for two days, slapped twice, fined, and fired; his wife and second child remained in China without incident for six years.
- Chen asserted past persecution (physical assault, fines, job loss) and a well-founded fear of future persecution based on resistance to family planning policy and on his Christian religious practice.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Chen petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
- The agency found the harm suffered did not amount to persecution and that Chen failed to show an objective, local risk of future persecution for either family planning resistance or religion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chen suffered past persecution | Chen: detention, slapping, fine, and job loss cumulatively amounted to persecution | Govt: harms were minor, temporary, and economically non-substantial | Denied — agency reasonably concluded these facts did not rise to persecution |
| Whether Chen has a well-founded fear re: family planning policy | Chen: will be punished again for resisting policy | Govt: wife and child remained in China without harm; no local enforcement showing | Denied — lack of evidence that local authorities would punish him again |
| Whether Chen has a well-founded fear based on religion | Chen: police previously looked for him; risk to Christians in China supports fear | Govt: country reports show no pattern of persecution of Christians in Fujian; fear speculative | Denied — agency reasonably found fear not objectively reasonable for his locality |
| Standard applied to asylum claim and effect on withholding/CAT | Chen: IJ applied too stringent "likely" standard rather than "reasonable possibility" | Govt: BIA reviewed de novo and applied correct, more generous standard | Denied — any error harmless; failure to meet asylum standard forecloses withholding and CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir.) (persecution can include substantial economic disadvantage but does not cover every offensive treatment)
- Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (must assess cumulative significance of harms when evaluating persecution)
- Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir.) (minor physical injuries without lasting effect do not constitute persecution)
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (well-founded fear for family planning claims requires showing local punishment for violations)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir.) (asylum standard requires a reasonable possibility of future persecution)
- Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660 (2d Cir.) (failure to meet asylum standard forecloses withholding and CAT relief)