Wei Ye v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 17-1716 ______________ WEI YE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA-1 No. A 208-485-383) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal ______________ Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 26, 2017 BEFORE: GREENAWAY, JR., COWEN, Circuit Judges and PADOVA, District Judge* (Filed: December 15, 2017) ______________ OPINION** ______________ ____________________ * The Honorable John R. Padova, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. COWEN, Circuit Judge. Wei Ye petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which, in turn, dismissed his appeal from the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We will deny the petition. I. Ye, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, entered the United States without a valid entry document. Conceding removability, he applied, inter alia, for asylum and withholding of removal. Ye claimed that he suffered past persecution—and feared persecution in the future—on account of religion. The IJ denied relief. Adopting the IJ’s decision and upholding her determination that Ye had not met his burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal, the BIA dismissed his administrative appeal: “Even though the respondent described being detained for 7 days and also ‘kicked and slapped,’ we agree with the [IJ] that this mistreatment does not constitute past persecution within the meaning of the [Immigration and Nationality] Act ([AR45-AR46, AR94-AR96, AR111-AR112]).” (AR3 (citing Kibinda v. Attorney General, 477 F.3d 113, 119-20 (3d Cir. 2007)).) Furthermore, the BIA explained that “[w]e agree with the [IJ] that the respondent has not met his burden to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on his having attended an underground church in China ([AR49-AR50]).” (AR4.) II. An asylum applicant must show an inability or unwillingness to return to the 2 country to which he or she will be removed because of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.1 See, e.g., Garcia v. Attorney General, 665 F.3d 496, 503 (3d Cir. 2011). According to Ye, the BIA erred by finding that he had not suffered persecution in the past. Noting that he was detained, interrogated, and beaten for seven days simply for attending a church, he contends that “[t]his is an Extreme punishment for simply following one own religious beliefs.” (Petitioner’s Brief at 10.) However, it is well established that “the concept of persecution does not encompass all treatment that our society regards as unfair, unjust, or even unlawful or unconstitutional.” Fatin v. I.N.S., 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir. 1993). The agency did not commit reversible error by finding that, “while the ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals