Immigration – Asylum – China

Listen to this article

Immigration – Asylum – China

The BIA improperly denied asylum to a Chinese immigrant seeking asylum based on fear of persecution because of her Christianity.

“The last paragraph of the Board’s opinion states summarily that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate changed country conditions. By limiting itself to reports dated 2009 or later, however, the Board deprived itself of the ability to compare current conditions in China regarding persecution of members of house churches with conditions in 2002, the date of the petitioner’s final removal hearing. Yet remember that the petitioner had cited reports issued in that and subsequent years that the Board had ignored; by ignoring them the Board disabled itself from determining whether persecution of the house churches had worsened since 2002. In addition, the petitioner submitted—and the Board also ignored—reports, and once again they mainly are official federal government publications, which state that persecution of members of house churches is indeed worse today than it was in 2002. Recall our earlier quotation from the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report for 2011; see also U.S. Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report for July-December 2010: China 1 (2011); Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Annual Report 136 (2009); China Aid Association, 2010 Annual Report 9 (2011). And compare the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009: China 15 (2010) (‘several large house churches reported increased government interference with their activities in periods preceding sensitive anniversaries’), the 2008 Country Report, § 2.c (2009) (‘authorities disrupted church meetings and retreats; detained, beat, and harassed leaders and church members; and confiscated the personal property of church leaders and members.’), and the 2005 Country Report, § 2.c (2006) (‘the new regulations require religious groups to register places of worship and authorized the government to define what religious activity is ‘normal’ and therefore lawful.

Spiritual activities in places of worship that have not registered may be considered illegal and participants can be punished’), with the 2002 Country Report, § 2.c (2003) (‘in certain areas in the southeast, government supervision of religious activity was minimal, and registered and unregistered churches were treated similarly by authorities, existing openly side by side),’ and the 2001 Country Report, § 2.c (2002) (‘official repression of underground Catholic and Protestant groups in Guangdong and Fujian provinces eased somewhat’)—all unaccountably ignored by the Board. Occasionally the later reports repeat almost verbatim characterizations of governmental attitudes toward the house churches from the earlier reports, suggesting no increase in harassment or persecution. The repetitions may have been unintentional, but in any event the Board did not mention them. In sum, the evidence of changed conditions, and that the petitioner faces a significant risk of persecution if she is removed to China, is unrebutted.”

Vacated.

12-3581 Liu v. Holder

Petition to Review Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Posner, J.

Full Text