Yanling Li v. U.S. Attorney General

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Yanling Li. Decision: Affirmed. Petition Denied. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-13484

Date Filed: 03/29/2017

Page: 1 of 8

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13484
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A087-881-063
YANLING LI,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(March 29, 2017)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Yanling Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order
that affirmed the denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal

Case: 16-13484

Date Filed: 03/29/2017

Page: 2 of 8

under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals
affirmed the findings of the immigration judge that Li failed to establish she had
suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on
her participation in an unregistered church in China. We deny Li’s petition.
Because the Board agreed with the findings of the immigration judge, we
review both their decisions. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th
Cir. 2010). We review de novo the legal conclusions of the Board and the
immigration judge, and we review related findings of fact for substantial evidence.
Id. at 948. The substantial evidence test requires that we affirm the decision so
long as it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the
record considered as a whole.” Id. (quoting Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229,
1236 (11th Cir. 2006)). We can reverse “only when the record compels a reversal;
the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to
justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d
1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
The Attorney General has authority to grant asylum to an alien who qualifies
as a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee is “any person who is outside
any country of such person’s nationality . . . who is unable or unwilling to return to
2

Case: 16-13484

Date Filed: 03/29/2017

Page: 3 of 8

. . . [or] to avail him or herself of the protection of that country because of
persecution or a well–founded fear of persecution on account of . . . religion.” Id.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A). To attain refugee status, an alien must present specific and
credible evidence that she had been persecuted earlier or has a well–founded fear
that she will face persecution based on one of the protected grounds. Ruiz v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).
Persecution is an “extreme concept” requiring evidence of more than
harassment or “a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.”
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). We evaluate
the harms suffered cumulatively in determining whether an alien was persecuted.
Shi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 707 F.3d 1231, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013). A well-founded fear
of future persecution exists only if the alien establishes that there is a reasonable
possibility she will be singled out for persecution on account of a protected ground
and that her fear of persecution is “subjectively genuine and objectively
reasonable.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009).
Alternatively, the alien can present evidence that she is a member of, or is
identified with, a group that is subject to a “pattern or practice” of persecution. Id.
“Minor physical abuse and brief detentions do not amount to persecution.”
Id. at 1353. Evidence that an alien was imprisoned for 36 hours in a small cell with
3

Case: 16-13484

Date Filed: 03/29/2017

Page: 4 of 8

12 people, forced to drink a “very dirty liquid” and eat something “very bad,” and
endured being hit with a belt and kicked, which caused lacerations and bruising
that required treatment for two days in a hospital did not compel a finding of
persecution in Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1171, 1174 (11th Cir.
2008). Nor, we concluded, was an alien persecuted when he was imprisoned for
four days, during which he was interrogated for five hours and beaten, and was
monitored after his release. Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1353. And in Zheng v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2006), we concluded that evidence of an alien
being imprisoned for five days, forced to watch reeducation videos, stand in the
sun for two hours, and sign a pledge agreeing to forsake his religion did not
establish past persecution. Id. at 1289, 1291–92.
Exposure to a variety of harms for a prolonged period can rise to the level of
persecution. For example, in Shi we concluded that an alien suffered past
persecution when officials barged into his father’s home, confiscated bibles,
imprisoned him for seven days, subjected him to two interrogations during which
he was assaulted while being questioned about his church and accused of traitorous
conduct, and handcuffed him to an iron bar located outside where he remained
overnight in the rain. 707 F.3d at 1232–33. That “sequence of experiences,” we
held, amounted to “extreme and egregious” maltreatment that constituted
persecution. Id. at 1235; see Niftaliev v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir.
4

Case: 16-13484

Date Filed: 03/29/2017

Page: 5 of 8

2007) (the cumulative effect of beatings, arrests, searches, interrogations, being
imprisoned for 15 days during which he was given little food or water and
threatened with being shot, and continuing to be stalked, threatened, and assaulted
after relocating amounted to past persecution). Shi being imprisoned for a week
and undergoing two interrogations during which he was slapped in the face,
threatened with more serious harm, and had a chair kicked out from under him was
more grievous than the experiences of the aliens in Djonda and Zheng who, we
explained, were subject to shorter “detention[s] combined with some physical
abuse.” Shi, 707 F.3d at 1237. Those aliens, we explained, had not also endured a
church raid, impounding of their religious materials, and the “singularly cruel . . .
tactic” perpetrated on Shi of being shackled to a post and exposed to harsh
weather. Id. at 1237–39. And, disparate from the aliens in Djonda and Zheng, Shi’s
ordeal did not end until after officials sensed he might die from a high fever and
sore throat. Id. at 1237–38. The brutalities heaped on Shi “[rose] to the extreme
level required to compel a finding of persecution.” Id. at 1239.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Li failed to establish that she
suffered past persecution in China for her participation in an unregistered church.
Li’s short detention, minor injuries, and post-release inconveniences were not on
par with the “extreme and egregious” abuse in Shi, id. at 1235. Officials arrested Li
during a meeting of an unregistered church and confiscated materials, but Li’s
5

Case: 16-13484

Date Filed: 03/29/2017

Page: 6 of 8

detention lasted only four days. She underwent just one interrogation during which
she sustained a single punch to the face and one lash on the back for which she was
treated for bruises and dizziness during a 30-minute doctor visit. The aliens in
Djonda and Kazemzadeh endured similar or worse abuse than Li. See Djonda, 514
F.3d at 1171, 1174 (suffering lacerations and bruising that was treated during a
two-day stay in a hospital was not persecution); Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1351
(being incarcerated for 4 days and undergoing a 5-hour interrogation and being
beaten did not amount to past persecution). And like the aliens in Kazemzadeh and
Zheng, Li was required to sign a “promise letter” before her release and required to
return to the police station weekly. Considered cumulatively, Li’s mistreatment did
not “rise to the extreme level required to compel a finding of persecution.” Shi, 707
F.3d at 1239. Because Li failed to establish past persecution, she was not entitled
to a presumption that she faced future persecution. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at
1351 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)).
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Li does not have a wellfounded fear of future persecution based on her religious activities. Li submitted
several reports on country conditions, the 2007 Asylum Profile, and the 2013
International Religious Freedom Report stating that members of unregistered
churches undergo some harassment and mistreatment by Chinese officials, but
those reports also stated that the penalties imposed on unregistered churches vary
6

Case: 16-13484

Date Filed: 03/29/2017

Page: 7 of 8

in different regions and some localities tolerate the churches. The reports stated
that church leaders and religious dissidents were punished more severely, but Li
introduced no evidence that she was or would be regarded as more than a
congregant of an unregistered church. Li also failed to introduce any evidence that
Chinese officials had targeted unregistered churches in her province or had
harassed or limited the travel of or work available to other congregants who were
arrested with her. Li stated in her application that local officials had visited her
family, threatened to prosecute them if they withheld information about her
location, and warned that Li was “in serious trouble,” but those encounters failed to
establish that she faced future persecution. And a report prepared by the Law
Library of Congress stated there was no “authoritative information” that persons
“released on supervision after being temporarily detained or subject to short term
administrative detention . . . would be arrested upon returning to China.” Li’s
evidence does not compel the conclusion that she is a member of or identified with
a group subject to a “pattern or practice” of persecution or that she will be singled
out for persecution if she returns to China. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1352.
Li also does not qualify for withholding of removal or relief under the
Convention. Li had to prove, respectively, that it is more likely than not that her
“life or freedom would be threatened in [China] because of . . . religion,” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(A), or that “she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country
7

Case: 16-13484

Date Filed: 03/29/2017

Page: 8 of 8

of removal,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3). Because Li cannot satisfy the standard to
obtain asylum relief, she necessarily fails to qualify under the more stringent
standards imposed for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention. See
Zheng, 451 F.3d at 1292.
We DENY Li’s petition for review.

8