Yuquan Weng v. Lynch, 665 F. App'x 16

Background

Petitioner Yuquan Weng, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after family planning officials assaulted him and intervened in his wife’s pregnancy.
Weng’s wife previously had an IUD and an abortion imposed by officials; she later removed the IUD and became pregnant, but the pregnancy was terminated by officials.
Weng testified he was punched, kicked, detained for one day, and sustained bruises during one encounter with family planning officials.
The IJ denied relief finding no past persecution and no objectively reasonable fear of future sterilization; the BIA affirmed. Weng petitioned this Court for review.
The IJ relied in part on the 2013 U.S. State Department Country Report (not challenged on appeal) describing regional variation in China’s family planning enforcement and noting many families can have more than one child.
The central legal question was whether Weng demonstrated past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution tied to China’s family planning policy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Weng suffered past persecution	Weng argued the beating, detention, and pregnancy-termination pressure amounted to persecution	Government argued injuries were minor (brief beating, bruises) and did not rise above harassment	Court held evidence showed only minor injuries; not severe enough to constitute past persecution
Whether Weng has a well‑founded fear of future sterilization	Weng argued he and his wife want another child, wife was previously pregnant and officials forced termination, so future sterilization is plausible	Government relied on State Dept. report and lack of province-specific evidence of sterilization; argued fear not objectively reasonable	Court held fear not objectively reasonable given record and unchallenged Country Report; petitioner failed to meet burden
Whether regional enforcement supports objective risk finding	Weng pointed to Fujian law obligations and broad remedial powers of officials to argue local risk	Government emphasized country report showing variation and no evidence of the specific practice in Fujian	Held for government: absence of evidence of local enforcement of sterilization/punishment undermined petitioner’s claim
Whether denial of asylum bars withholding and CAT relief	Weng argued underlying facts support all relief forms	Government contended all claims rest on same factual predicate and fail together	Court denied all relief because asylum threshold not met and other claims share predicate

Key Cases Cited

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing IJ decision as modified by BIA)
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir.) (standards of review for immigration appeals)
Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.) (spousal forced family‑planning measures do not automatically confer derivative asylum)
Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.) (non‑life‑threatening violence may constitute persecution if sufficiently severe)
Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir.) (persecution must rise above mere harassment)
Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir.) (minor bruising from family‑planning altercation insufficient for past persecution)
Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir.) (definition of persecution as an extreme concept)
Ai Feng Yuan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 192 (2d Cir.) (context for persecution analysis)
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.) (well‑founded fear requires subjective credibility and objective reasonableness)
Rui Ying Lin v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (vacated agency finding that fear of forced sterilization was speculative where petitioner planned more children)
Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.) (issues not adequately briefed are waived)
Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir.) (deference when IJ findings tethered to evidentiary record)
Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (applicant must show local enforcement would punish family‑planning violations to establish objective fear)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (when claims share same factual predicate, denial of asylum can support denial of withholding and CAT relief)