2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-16-2013

Yu Lin v. Attorney General United States

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1255

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Yu Lin v. Attorney General United States" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 215.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/215
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-1255

___________

YU ZHAN LIN,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A087-978-693)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Frederic G. Leeds

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 11, 2013

Before: FISHER, GARTH and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 16, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Yu Zhan Lin petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

final order of removal. We will deny the petition.
2

I.

Lin is a citizen of China who entered the United States without having been 

admitted or paroled and who concedes that he is removable on that basis. Lin applied for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

(“CAT”) on the ground that he suffered and fears mistreatment for having resisted 

China’s family planning policies. Lin and his wife have one child (both his wife and 

child remain in China). Lin claims that, when his wife became pregnant again, Chinese 

authorities forced her to have an abortion. Lin further claims that he confronted the 

officials, who “hit” and “beat” him and then called police to accuse him of having 

attacked them. The police beat Lin with batons, causing bruising on his “body, back, 

legs, everywhere,” and then detained him for eight days. When the police released him, 

they warned him that that they would put him in jail if he “caused trouble” again. Lin did 

not seek or require medical treatment for his injuries, and he left for the United States 

approximately one year later.

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Lin credible but denied relief. In particular, 

the IJ concluded that Lin’s mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution and that 

he had not otherwise shown a well-founded fear of persecution because his fear of again 

being punished by Chinese authorities was too speculative. The IJ further concluded that 

Lin had not shown a likelihood of persecution for purposes of withholding of removal or 

a likelihood of torture for purposes of CAT. The BIA dismissed Lin’s appeal after 
3

finding no basis to disturb the IJ’s conclusions. Lin petitions for review.1

II.

The Government argues that Lin has waived all issues on review because he has 

raised no specific challenge to any aspect of the BIA’s decision. It is true that Lin does 

not expressly assert that the BIA erred in any particular respect, but his brief can be read 

to assert two challenges to its ruling. Each lacks merit.

First, Lin argues that his mistreatment by Chinese authorities constitutes past 

persecution giving rise to a rebuttable presumption that he has a well-founded fear of 

persecution in the future. See Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 224 (3d Cir. 2004). 

“While this Court has not yet drawn a precise line concerning where a simple beating 

ends and persecution begins, our cases suggest that isolated incidents that do not result in 

serious injury do not rise to the level of persecution.” Voci, 409 F.3d at 615. We have 

held on numerous occasions that mistreatment similar to Lin’s is of that kind. See, e.g., 

Chen, 381 F.3d at 223, 234-35 (beating by family planning officials that did not require 

medical treatment together with fiancee’s forced abortion); Jarbough, 483 F.3d at 191 

(two detentions and a beating that resulted in bruising but that did not require medical 

 

1 We review the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions together because the BIA both agreed with the 

IJ’s decision and added some of its own reasoning. Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607, 612-

13 (3d Cir. 2005). We review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial evidence and may 

not disturb them unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 

the contrary.” Lin-Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). “Whether an applicant has demonstrated past persecution is a 

factual determination reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.” Jarbough v. 

Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted).
4

attention). Lin argues that his mistreatment rises to the level of persecution when 

considered cumulatively with his wife’s forced abortion, but the BIA expressly 

considered them in the aggregate (BIA Dec. at 2), and we cannot say that the evidence 

compelled it to conclude to the contrary. See Chen, 381 F.3d at 223, 234-35 (rejecting 

argument that “the beatings [petitioner] suffered at the hands of government officials 

combine with the forced abortion . . . in such a way as to constitute past persecution”).

Second, Lin challenges the BIA’s ruling that he did not otherwise show a wellfounded fear of persecution. The BIA concluded that Lin had not shown an objectively 

reasonable possibility of being subject to persecution on the speculative ground that he 

might have more children in the future. See Voci, 409 F.3d at 613. Lin argues that the 

Agency failed to consider whether he might be persecuted on account of his altercation 

with family planning officials, but the BIA’s analysis accounts for that possibility. Lin

testified that Chinese authorities warned him upon his release that “if, in the future, I 

cause trouble again, they will put me in jail.” (A.R. 105.) Thus, Lin’s own testimony 

provides no reason to believe that Chinese officials will show any interest in him unless 

he “cause[s] trouble again,” presumably by violating or resisting the family planning 

laws. The BIA adequately addressed why that speculative possibility does not make him 

eligible for relief.

2

For these reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

 

2

Lin asserts that he is entitled to withholding of removal and relief under CAT because 

he has satisfied the standard for asylum. Lin has not satisfied the standard for asylum, 
5

 

and even if he had it would not establish his entitlement to these different forms of relief.