Zedong Wang v. Sessions
706 F. App'x 5
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Zedong Wang, a Chinese national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on fear of persecution for Christian proselytizing conducted via internet to his grandparents in China.
- Wang claimed Chinese police discovered his online proselytizing, detained and beat his grandparents, and a family friend paid a fine to secure their release.
- At removal proceedings Wang offered a fine receipt and unsworn letters from his grandfather and the family friend; he did not provide testimony or an affidavit from his father (who allegedly reimbursed the friend) or evidence of his registered video-chat account.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief for lack of corroboration and insufficiency of country-conditions evidence; the BIA affirmed and declined to consider additional evidence submitted for the first time on appeal.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ decision (as supplemented by the BIA) and denied Wang’s petition for review, concluding he failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wang proved a well-founded fear of future persecution based on religion | Wang argued police knew of his proselytizing (via internet) and his grandparents were detained and beaten, creating objective fear | Government argued Wang failed to corroborate key facts and country conditions do not show pattern/practice of persecution of similarly situated Christians | Held for government: Wang failed to demonstrate well-founded fear |
| Whether Wang’s testimony required corroboration or stood alone | Wang relied on his testimony and some documents | Government argued inconsistencies and lack of reasonably available corroboration justified requiring corroboration | Held for government: corroboration reasonably required and not provided |
| Credibility and weight of documentary evidence (receipt, unsworn letters) | Wang offered fine receipt and letters from grandfather and friend to corroborate detention and awareness by authorities | Government attacked timing/inconsistency of receipt and argued unsworn/interest letters are weak because authors unavailable for cross-examination | Held for government: IJ properly discounted/declined to credit those items |
| Whether country conditions showed pattern or practice of persecution of similarly situated Christians | Wang asserted country conditions show systemic persecution of unregistered Christians | Government pointed to large numbers of Christians and regional variance, arguing no systemic or pervasive persecution of similarly situated individuals | Held for government: record did not show pattern or practice sufficient to establish objective fear |
Key Cases Cited
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA decision and agency record)
- Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2009) (corroboration and burden rules for asylum applicants)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (requirement to show authorities are aware or likely to become aware of applicant’s activities)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (weight of unsworn letters from interested witnesses)
- Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (pattern-or-practice standard for country conditions)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (relationship among asylum, withholding, and CAT relief)
- Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012) (treatment of BIA precedent and evidentiary considerations)