## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 1130 H AI CHU N L IU, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 097-838- 869.

A RG UE D A UGUS T 7, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 31, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e . H aic h u n L iu , a 50 -ye ar -old nati ve and ci ti zen o fChin a, c am e t o the Unite d Sta tes ove r a de c a de a g o a ft e r pr o t e s t i ng the l o s s o f hi s j ob at a s tat e- own ed f acto ry . H e peti ti ons f orrevi ew o fan o rder o fthe Bo ar d o fI m m i g r at i o n App eal s upho l di ngthe i mm i g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s d e n i a l o fh i s r e q u e s t s f o r a s y l u m, w i thhol ding ofr em ova l, and re lief und erthe U ni ted2 N o. 12

- 1130 N at i o ns Co nv en ti o n Aga i ns t To r tu r e. Be ca us e th e Board’ s deci si on i s s up port ed by substa nti alev id en ce, we de ny the pe ti ti o n. Li u a r r i ve d i n the U ni te d S ta te s as a no ni m m i g r an t vi si t o r i n 2 0 0 0 a n d o v e r s t a y e d

. He c a me t o th e g o v er nm ent’ s a tte nti on w hi l e work i ng ata re sta urant i n W i scons i n. The go ver nm ent b ega n re m ova l pro ceedi ngs ag ainst h im i n 2 00 8, c ha r g i nghi m wi tho ve r st ay i nga nd v i o l a t i ngthe c o nd i t i o ns o fh i s a dmi s s i o n. S e e 8 U. S
. C. § 12 27 ( a) ( 1) ( B) , ( C) ( i )
. Li u co nc ede d r emov ab i l ity b ut soug h t asyl um and w i thhol ding ofr em ova l bas ed on pol i ti calo pini on, as wellas r elie f under the Conventi on A gai nst Tor ture
. At a he ar i ngb efo r e th e i m m i g r ati on j udg e, Li u

— who i s f r o m the l ar g e i nd us tria l c i tyo fF us hun ( Li ao ni ng Pro vi nce) i n China’ s no rtheast er n rustbel t

— tes ti fi ed that he was pers ecuted afterpro testi ng l ayo ff s a t Hu afeng, a s tat e- own ed m achi neryf acto ry . Li u w or ked at H ua fen g a s a wel derfr o m 1 98 0 unt i l 1 99 9, whenhe a nd ha lfthe w orkforce w ere lai d o ffbecau se of the factory’s rest ru c turing. Li u m et w i th a com pany m anage r thre e tim es to ask for his j ob an d ben efi ts bac k. A t t h e third m ee ting, Li u b r o ug hta l o ngs i xt een c o - wor k er s an d ple d that they ha d to “get ba ck our i nsurances and benefi ts” to sur vi ve. Li u tes ti fi ed that he be cam e “ ver y e m oti ona l ” du r ingtheme e t ing and used “a ggr ess i ve” l anguage and sw earw ords. The m anage r accused the gr oup of m aki ng tr oubl e. A fterthe m eet i ng devo l ved i nto “verbal q uarr el s, ” Li u tes ti fi ed, se curi ty perso nnel handcuffed him and broug ht him to the p oli ce stat ion, w he reN o. 12

- 1130 3 officers accu sed him of “interfering w ith th e social order. ” The next day j ai l i nm ate s i nter ro gat ed L iu . W hen h e r e fu s e d t o a n s we r, th e i nm a t e s b e a th i m

— k i ck i ng hi m , p ull i nghi s ha i r, hi tt i nghi m wi tha b el t, a nd kn oc kin g h is h ea d ag ain st a w all

— for t en m in u t e s u n til he l ostco nsci ousness . Liu w as re l eas ed fro m the pol i ce s tat i on fi ve days l a t e r a ft e r h e a dmi t t e d t o wr o ng do i ng and, h e t e s t i fi e d, p rom ised no t t o “m ake su ch a scen e again” or to “rep ort on the co m pany anym or e. ” He w ent t o th e ho spi talf or an x -ra y a n d m e d ica tio n s. (L iu te st ified th at h e d id not know the x- ra y r esul ts, but th at h i s bo dy w as b ru ise d an d sw olle n an d h e h ad int er n al inju rie s in hi s l o we r b a c k

. ) La t e r Li u wr o t e a n a no ny mou s l e t t er to the c i vi l co m pla i nts dep ar tm ent o fthe m unici pal go ver nm ent c om pla i ni ng, he t est i fi ed, abo ut “ho w co rr up ted th e c o mpa n y l e a d e r s h i p wa s ” a n d h o w “ d e s p i t e t he ha r dsh i p o fthe wor k er ’ s l i fe, ” th eystil l l ai d o ffmany w or ker s. H e di d not keep a copy ofthe l ett erbec ause, he s ai d, he fea r ed r ev en g e. Presum abl y b ec au se the l ett erwas anonym ous, Li u re cei ved no re sponse to i t. H e te st i fi ed, ho wev er, that the muni ci palg o ve r nm en t k ne w t h e l e t t e r wa s wr i t t e n b y “ o n e o f th e p e o p l e who w as l ai d offbythis co m pany. ” Publ i c o ffi ci al s l ate r tol d Liu’ s w i fe that he w oul d fa ce “ ser i ous c onse quences” if h e c o n tin u ed to m ak e t ro u b le. Fiv e m on th s la te r, L iu l eft Chi na f orthe U ni ted S tat es, bu t he l ear ned fr om hi s wi fe th ato ffi ci al s o fte n c ame b y the ir hom e as k i ng about hi s whereab outs. A t the hear i ng, Li u tes ti fi ed that he ne ve r b el o ng ed to a ny po l i ti ca l o r g an i za ti o n i n China4 N o. 12

- 1130

o r the Uni te d S ta te s, a nd he a ckno wl edg ed th athe

“ d i d n ’ t d o a n y th i n g t o p r o t e s t o r c r i t i c i z e th e g o ve r nm en t o f C h in a.” The i m m i g r at i o n j udg e f o und Li u r emov ab l e an d d eni ed hi s a pp l i cati ons f orr el i ef

. Li u w as i nel i gible f oras yl um , the j ud ge f ound, because he fi l ed hi s a p p li cati on e i ght y ears after ar ri ving i n the U ni ted S tat es and fail ed to sho w thathe fel l withi n an e xcepti on t o th e o ne - y ea r fi l i ngde adl i ne . Li u was i ne l i g ibl e f o r wi th

h old in g of re m ov al, th e jud ge d et er m in ed , bec au se h is alle g e d pers ecu tion d id n ot occu r on acc ou nt of a pol i ti calo pini on: Li u did n ot enga ge “i n pol i ti calag i tat i on ag ain sts t a t e co rru p tio n,” th e jud ge ex p lain ed , an d “d id no t p u b l i c l y e x p r e s s a n y o p p o s i t i o n . ” Al th o u g h L i u s en t ana no ny m o us l et te r abo utc o r r upt i o n, he o ffered no evi dence thatautho ri ti es knew he w ro te i t. U l ti m ate l y, the j ud ge f ound, Liu was a “pri vat e ac tor ” whose “ em oti onalo utburstl ed to hi s dete nti on. ” Th e j u dge al so sai d t ha tLi u’ s me di c a l t r e a t men ta ft e r the b e a t i ngs ug ge st ed on ly “ su p er ficia l inju ry .” A n d a lth ou gh h is t es tim ony w as cre dibl e, the j ud ge noted , Li u did notco rr obo

ra te i t with l ett er s fro m f am ily or fri ends. The j ud ge f ound that the pol i ce v i si ts t o Liu’ s wife di d not e stabl i sh a c lea r p ro b ab ility o f fu tu re p er se c u tio n be c au se h is fam ily re m ain ed u n h ar m ed . Fin ally , th e ju d ge fou n d L iu i nel i gibl e forConventi on Agai nst Tor ture pro tect i on b ec au se h e fa iled t o s h ow th at h e w ou ld likely b e t o r t ur e d u p o n r e t u r n i n gt o C h i n a . T h e B o a r d o fI mm igr at ion A p p ea l s ag re ed w ith th e jud ge ’s ra tio n ale an d uphe l d the de ci si o n.N o. 12

- 1130 5 I n hi s peti ti on, Li u firs t a sse rt s that the i m m i gr atio n j ud ge w ro ngl y di sm i sse d his as yl um appli cati on as unt i m ely a nd i ns i sts he pr o vi ded a “l eg al l y s o und re aso n to es tabl i sh an e xcepti onalci rcum sta nce” t o th e one- yea r bar

. But Liu doe s no t i denti fy why extr aor dinar y or changed ci rcum sta nces excuse his la te fi l i ng, se e 8 U
. S. C. § 1 15 8(a) ( 2) ( D), so hi s undevel oped c o nt e nt i o ns ar e wai v e d. Se e R agh un a tha n v . Ho lder, 60 4 F .3 d 37 1, 37 8 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); Wa ng v. G o nz a les , 4 4 5 F. 3d 99 3, 9 99 ( 7th C ir
. 2 00 6)
. Be ca us e Li u di d no t di sc us s th e C onv en tion A gainst Tort u re clai m i n h is open ing brief, h e has waive d i t a s wel l

. S ee Haxhi u v . M ukasey , 51 9 F.3 d 68 5, 69 2 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); H ua ng v. G o nz a les , 40 3 F
. 3d 945, 951 (7th C ir. 2005). Li u f o c u s e s o n th e d e n i a l o fh i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r wi thh old in g of re m ov al, ar gu in g t h a t th e re c or d co m p els t h e con clusion that he w as p ersecu ted becau se of a pol i ti calo pini on that he h el d. Speci fi cal l y, he a rgues th at h is e ffor ts in o rg an izin g s ix te en co -w or ke rs in “w agi ng the pro tes ts” atH uaf eng c onst i tuted a “m att er ofpubli c c oncern. ” He conte nd s that the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge “i gnor ed” bo th hi s a nonym ous l ett eri n w hi ch he “ ex po se[ d ] the c o r r upt i o n o fthe l ea der sh i p” an d the f act that pu bl i c o ffi ci al s t ol d his w i fe to f or w ar d w ar ni ngs to hi m. He i de nt i fi e s the c o r r e c t l e g a l s t a nd a r ds : to quali fy forwithhol ding ofr em ova l bas ed on pol i ti cal op inion, L iu had to show a clear p robab il ity t ha t his l ife or fr eedom would be thre ate ned on acc ount o fpol i ti cal op inion ifhe retu rns to C hin a. See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1231(b)(3)( A ); 8 C
. F.R. § 1208
. 16(b); Prel a v. A shcroft, 39 4 F
. 3d 515, 51 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. W e r ev i ew the a gen cy ’ s dec i si o n de ny i ng6 N o. 12

- 1130 wi thho l di ngo fr emov alfo r s ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce a nd m ayr ev er se “ o nl y i fthe e vi den ce c o m pel s a differ en t re sul t. ” A bra ha m v. Ho lder, 64 7 F
. 3d 626, 63 2 ( 7th Cir
. 20 11) ; se e 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(b)(4)( B ). The f acto rycl osur es, m ass l ayo ff s, and l aborunres t i n China’ s no rtheastr egi on i n the 1990 s

— l i ke thos e des cr ibed in Li u’ s pet i ti o n

— se t t h e s ta ge for lar ge -sc ale pol i ti calp ro tes ts condem ni ng o ffi ci alco rr up ti on. S ee Ref or m i ng t heno r t h- e as t : Rus t b e l tre vi val, The E conom i st (Ju n e 1 6, 20 12 ), ava il ableat h t t p : //www. e c o n o mi s t
. c o m/ nod e/2155 6988 ; U
. S. De p ’t ofState, 2002 Cou nt ry Rep ort on H u m an R igh ts P ra c tic es : C h in a (M ar . 31, 20 03 ), ava il

ab l eath t t p : //ww w. s t a t e . g o v/ j / d r l/r l s /h r r p t/2 0 0 2 / 1 8 2 3 9
. h t m. C ou rt s h av e g ra n te d p et itio n s fo r re vie w of laid -off C h ines e wor k er s who publ i cl y c o nde m ne d g o ve r nm en t m i sco nd uct duri ng thi s e ra . Se e g ener al l y H u v. H o lder, 652 F.3 d 1011, 10 13- 14 ( 9th Ci r. 20 11) ( gr anti ng peti ti on w here peti ti onero rg ani zed 10 0 l ai d-o ff w or ker s t o prot esti n fro nt o fci ty gov er nm ent bui l ding, was accuse d ofact i ng ag ai nst Com m unis t par ty, and w as detained an d be at en ); B u v . Go nz a les , 4 90 F
. 3d 42 4, 4 26

- 31 ( 6th Cir. 2007 ) ( gr anti ng peti ti on wh er e pet i ti onero rg an ized 1, 800 f acto ryworke rs to s tag e s i t- i n str i ke to prot est factory offici als’ corru p t a cts an d w as arrested and beaten ). I n Liu’ s ca se, however, the re cor d does no t com pel th e c on c lu sio n th at h e w as m ist re at e d b e c a u se of h is pol i ti calact i vi ti es i n ar ra ngi ng his prot estatH uaf eng, a s r e qu i r e d fo r wi thh o l di ngo fr e mov a l

. S e e 8 U. S
. C. § 12 31 ( b) ( 3)(A ). A po l i ti ca l o pi ni o n i s “o ne tha t i s ex p ressed throu gh politi ca l activities or th roug h som e sortN o. 12

- 1130 7 ofspeech in the pol i ti calar ena. ” Li v . Go nz a les , 41 6 F
. 3d 68 1, 6 85 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. Ca m pai g ni nga g ains t th e g o ve r nmen t, wr i t i ngo p- ed pie c e s , u r g i ngv o t e r s t o o us tc o r r up t offi ci al s, f ounding an anti

- cor rup tio n pol i ti calparty, acti vel y par ti ci pati ng i n an ant i

- cor rupti on par ty’ s a ctivities, o r s p eaking ou t rep eated ly as a “p ub li c gad fl y” are cl ass i c exam ple s o fpol i ti calspeech. S ee M us ab e l l i u v . G o nz a les , 442 F.3d 99 1, 99 5 ( 7t h C ir. 20 06 ); Ma r q u ez v . INS , 10 5 F .3d 3 74 , 381 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ). L iu d id n oten ga ge in these pol i ti calact i vi ti es. A s h e co nceded, he neve r bel onge d t o a pol i ti calo rg ani zati on o r dem onst ra ted ag ai nst th e C hin ese govern m en t. Ra th er, he organ ized co-w orkers at H u afe n g t o a sk for t h e i r j ob s a n d be n efit s b ac k; th is was a n e co no m i c demand, not a pr o te sto fg o ve r nm en t corru p tion. C f. Hu , 6 52 F .3d a t 1 01 3-1 4; Bu , 49 0 F
. 3d at 426- 31
. F ur th er m o r e, he w as r emov ed f r o m the Huafen g pr emi se s f o r c au sing a “v erba l qua r r el, ” no t f o r the conte nt o fthe prot est
. ( A fteral l, he pr evi ousl y m et w i th hi s m an ager p osingthe s ame g r i ev an ce s wi th o uti nci dent. ) S ee Z ha ng v. G o nz a les , 45 2 F
. 3d 167, 1 72 ( 2d Cir
. 20 06) (findingno pol i ti calper secuti on wh er e pol i ce re m ove d C hi nese peti ti oner from f acto rypre m i ses w he n sh e organized prote st of l ayoffs). Liu’ s t est i m ony that he co m posed an unsi gned l ett er assert ing corrup tion in the layoffs d oes not tran s fo rm hi s e c o no mi c pr o t e s t i nt o a po l i t i c a l o ne . He neve r pu bl i cl y a cknowle dged w ri ti ng the ano nym ous l et te r or t e s t i fi e d tha ta ny o ne kne w h e wr o t e i t
. Cf

. Hu , 6 5 2 F. 3d at 1018
. A l though a t o ra l ar gum ent Li u’s co unsel i nsi ste d that Chi nese offi ci als kn ew he wrot e the l ett er because theycou ld identi fy hi s handw ri ti ng, Li u never8 N o. 12

- 1130 te st ified to th at effe c t. N or d oe s a n y ot h er ev id en c e in the r eco rd support thi s a sse rt i on. Li u tes ti fi ed that offi ci al s knew o nl y that s om e l ai d-o ff w or kerfro m H uaf eng wrot e the l ett er, notthathe wrot e i t. T h e lacko fco m pel l i ng ev i dence thatLi u w as m istreated becau se o f h is poli tical opinion is “a m ore im p or ta n t c on sid er at ion in a n e va lu at ion of [h is] c laim ofper sec u tio n” than the s eve ri ty ofhi s inj uri es f ol l owing hi s be ati ng and detenti on. S ee Z hen g v . Ho lder, 66 6 F
. 3d 10 64, 1 066 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 2)
. The mis tr ea tment mu s tb e o n a c c o u n to fh i s p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y, a n d a s we have explain ed , the j ud ge did noter r by fi nd i ng tha t L iu ’s a c tiv i ty w as ec on om ic, n otp olit ica l. Fo r th is r e a s o n, we mu s td e n y h i s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w. W e a re t roubl ed, however, thatthe i m m i gr ati on j ud ge and Board co ncl ud ed that Liu di d n ot experi ence past per se cut i o n be ca us e, i n th ei r v i ew, the b ea tinga nd de te nti on ca used onl y “ superfi ci ali nj u ry .” T he Boar d has not defined p ersecuti on, and al though in the past we have deter m i ned that evi dence ofg overnm ent- sancti oned or to l er at ed be at i ng s d i d no t ne ce ss ar i l y c o m pela fi ndi ng ofpast perse cuti on, se e, e . g. , M em a v. G o nz a les , 474 F
. 3d 4 1 2 , 416-18 (7th C ir. 2007); Z hu v. G o nz a les , 46 5 F
. 3d 316, 31 8-2 0 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); D anda n v. Ashcroft, 33 9 F
. 3d 567, 57 3- 74 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) , we ha ve r ec en tly c l ar i fi ed tha t “the physi calf or ce [ at i ssue i n pers ecuti on] need notbe so gr eat as to i nfl i ct a ser i ous inj ury. ” Zhe ng, 666 F. 3d at 1067, ci ti ng B esko vic v. G o nz a les , 46 7 F
. 3d 223, 22 4 ( 2d Cir
. 20 06) ; se e a l so Sta n oj k o v a v. Ho lder, 64 5 F
. 3d 943, 94 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( explaini ng tha t a l though pastper secuti onN o. 12

- 1130 9

som etim es involves “th e use of s igni f i ca ntph ys i calf or ce ag ain sta p er so n ’s b od y, or t h e in flict ion of co m p ar ab le p h ys ica l ha rm w i t h o u t d ire c t a p p lica tio n of forc e,” it also i nc lud es “n onp hy sical harm of eq ua l gravity”). Inth is c as e, L iu te st ified th at h e w as s t r u c k w ith a b elt unt i l he f aint ed, hi s bo dy was b r ui se d a nd s wol l en, a nd he had i nter nal i nj uri es i n hi s l ower ba c k. H e di d not have m edi calr eco rds o fthe x-r ay re sul ts, but he was not r equi r ed to do cumento r g anda m ag e to prov e t ha t th e be at i nga m o unt ed to pe r se cut i o n. Se e Bu , 49 0 F
. 3d at 42 7, 43 0 (b ea tin g c on st itu te d p er se c u tio n w h er e p et iti onerte sti fi ed that beat i ng byinm at es caused bl eedi ng, vo m itin g , l os t c on sc iou sn es s, an d blo od clo ts on p et itioner’s bod y). N one th eless, even i f th e beatin gs w ere ca r r i e d o ut, a pp r o v e d, o r t o l e r a t e d b y the g o v e r nm ent, t he gr o u n d f o r th e b e a t i n gmu s tb e o n e o fth e g r o u nd s list ed in 8 U .S.C . § 12 31 (b )(3) (A ). Zh e ng, 666 F. 3d at 1067
. The re cor d here does notco m pe l t h e co ncl usi on that L iu ’s p o l itic al op in ion p ro vid ed th e g ro u n d for h is be at i nga nd de te nt i o n. Liu al so ar gues that he es tabl i shed a c l earpro babi l i ty offuture p ersecuti on o n acco unt ofhi s pol i ti calo pini on because the pol i ce o ccasi onal l y v i si t hi s wife’ s ho use t o a s kwh e r e h e i s . B u ti n q u i r i e s ab o u th i s l o c a t i o n, wi th o ut an y t h re at s t o h is “ life or free d om ,” d o n otc om p el a concl u sio n offuture perse cuti on o n acco unt ofpol i ti cal op inion. See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1231(b)(3)( A ); 8 C.F. R
. § 1208.16(b). M or eov er, the m i str eat m ent that Li u experi enced o cc ur r ed o ve r a de ca de ag o , a nd de spi te the po l i ce i nqu i r i e s , h i s f a mi l y i n C h i n a h a s n e v e r b e e n h a r med

. Se e M a rquez , 10 5 F
. 3d at 380.10 N o. 12

- 1130 Fi nal l y, Li u m ai ntai ns thatbec ause the i m m i gr ati on j udg e f o und h i m c r edibl e, the j udg e er r ed i n requi r i ng corroborat ion o f p ast or futu re pe rsecu tion w ith letters fro m f am i l y and fri ends. Bu t because the RE A L ID A ct appli es to Liu’ s case , once the j ud ge deter m in ed that he sho uld pro vi d e c orrobor ati ng ev i dence, he was r eq u ire d to d o s o u n les s h e s h ow ed th at h e c ou ld no tr e aso na b l y o b t a i n tha te v i de nc e . S e e 8 U. S
. C. §§ 115 8 (b )( 2 )( B )( ii) , 1 2 2 9 a (c )( 4 )( B ), 1231(b)(3)( C ), 1252(b)(4); K rishn a pil la i v . Ho lder, 56 3 F.3d 60 6, 61 8 (7th C ir. 20 09 ). L iu conte nd s that he gave a r easonabl e e xplanat i on f ornot ac quir i ng l ett er s fro m hi s f am i l y o r f ri ends: he di d not w an t t o i m p lica te th em or p u t t h em atrisk . B u t if L iu o r g a ni z e d a p r o t e s to fs i xt e e n peopl e wh o we r e a l r e a dy w i l l i ng to go publi c with th eir g rie vances , i t i s no t unre aso n ab le t o e x p ec t t h at atlea st on e o f th em w ou ld pr o v i de a s t a t e men t
. S e e A bra ham , 647F.3d at63 3. In any e vent, bec ause the j ud ge did noter r by fi nd in g that host i l i ty to Liu i s no t pol i ti cal l y m oti vate d, i t ca nnot su ppo r t th e r el i efo fwi thhol di ngo fr emov ale ve n i fthe host i l i ty n ee d nothave bee n cor ro bor ate d. The age ncy did noter r i n deter m i ni ng tha t Li u ’s c l ai m di d not j u st ify w ith h old in g of re m ov al. Forthes e r eas ons, the peti ti on forr evi ew i s D ENI ED .

8- 31- 12