Zi Yun Liang v. Sessions
693 F. App'x 84
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Zi Yun Liang, a Chinese national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, claiming persecution based on resistance to China's family planning policy and his Christian faith.
- Liang testified he was struck once on the cheek by a family planning official while attempting to visit his wife, who was being held for a compelled abortion; he alleged no injury requiring medical treatment.
- He also asserted fear of future persecution because his children were born in the U.S. allegedly contrary to family planning rules and because of his Christian practice.
- The Immigration Judge denied relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on September 28, 2011. Liang petitioned for review to the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit reviewed whether Liang showed past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution sufficient for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liang suffered past persecution | Liang: being struck while visiting his detained wife who faced a forced abortion amounted to persecution | Gov: single slap without injury is not persecution | Held: Not persecution — single hit without injury insufficient |
| Whether past persecution presumption applies | Liang: abuse occurred in context of detention of his wife, invoking Beskovic principle | Gov: Beskovic not applicable; circumstances here don't elevate mistreatment | Held: Court declined to extend Beskovic to these facts; no presumption applied |
| Whether Liang has well-founded fear under family planning policy | Liang: returning with U.S.-born children risks persecution in XUAR | Gov: Liang failed to show such persecution occurs in his home area | Held: Fear not objectively reasonable for his area; claim fails |
| Whether fear based on Christian faith is well-founded | Liang: risk of persecution for practicing Christianity | Gov: No evidence officials know or will learn of his faith; repression evidence concerns Uyghurs/Muslims | Held: Claim fails — no showing officials are or will be aware; regional evidence not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for asylum and country-condition analysis)
- Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir. 2011) (single instance of noninjurious mistreatment does not constitute persecution)
- Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011) (persecution is an extreme concept; not every offensive treatment qualifies)
- Ai Feng Yuan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2005) (defining persecution threshold)
- Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006) (mistreatment of detained persons can in some cases constitute persecution)
- Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008) (awareness of religious practice by officials relevant to asylum claims)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (standards for withholding of removal and CAT relief)