Zhi Wei Pang v. Holder
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 229
10th Cir.2012Background
- Pang entered the United States illegally in 1993 and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on resistance to China's population-control program.
- In China, Pang’s family faced coercive birth-control measures: his wife was sterilized; Pang was fined 3,000 RMB, later reduced to 1,500 RMB after help from relatives; home entertainment equipment was confiscated when the fine remained unpaid.
- The family continued to farm on government-assigned land; Pang fled China in February 1993 and now runs a restaurant in Colorado, sending $2,000–$3,000 annually to family in China.
- A 1996 IJ denial was based on adverse credibility; the BIA affirmed without opinion; the Second Circuit remanded, and venue later shifted to the Tenth Circuit; on remand, the BIA concluded the penalties did not amount to past persecution.
- The court applied the post-1996 refugee definition for resistance to coercive population-control policies, assessed aggregate harm, and determined the penalties were not severe enough to constitute persecution; Pang’s fear of future persecution was not well-founded, and he failed to show eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief.
- The panel ultimately denied Pang’s petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pang shows past persecution. | Pang: penalties and emotional harm from sterilization/sanctions constitute past persecution. | BIA: penalties did not jeopardize life/freedom; no guaranteed ongoing threat; economic sanctions insufficient. | No; record does not compel a finding of past persecution. |
| Whether Pang has a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned. | Pang: continuing fear due to prior resistance and ongoing government interest. | BIA: no ongoing interest; debt fulfilled; family remains safe in China. | No; no well-founded fear established. |
| Whether Pang qualifies for withholding of removal or CAT relief. | Past persecution or likelihood of torture would support withholding/CAT. | Failure to prove asylum defeats withholding and CAT standards. | Denied; failure to satisfy asylum standard precludes withholding and CAT. |
Key Cases Cited
- Li v. A.G. of the United States, 400 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2005) (economic persecution may reach persecution level in extreme sanctions)
- Cheng v. Attorney General, 623 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2010) (cumulative sanctions can constitute persecution)
- Vicente-Elias v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 2008) (assessing whether sanctions amount to persecution; aggregate harm)
- In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163 (BIA 2007) (economic sanctions may amount to persecution; degree of harm required)
- Sarr v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 783 (10th Cir. 2007) (persecution standard requires substantial evidence review)
- Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2010) (totality of circumstances may show persecution in some cases)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (reversals require compelling evidence rather than mere support for the finding)