[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-13262

________________________

Agency No. A200-915-056

SAIZHU WANG,

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(November 24, 2014)

Before HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and TOTENBERG,

* District Judge.

HULL, Circuit Judge:

 *

Honorable Amy Totenberg, United States District Judge for the Northern District of 

Georgia, sitting by designation. 

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 1 of 12 
2

Saizhu Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from the 

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and 

Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). See 8 

U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231. The BIA found that Wang failed to establish that she has a 

well-founded fear of persecution based on her conversion to Christianity or that 

she is likely to be tortured when she returns to the Fujian Province in China. After 

careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we deny Wang’s petition.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

In December 1998, Wang illegally entered the United States without 

inspection. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a 

notice to appear, charging Wang as removable pursuant to Immigration and 

Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for having 

entered the United States without being admitted or paroled by an immigration 

officer. Wang does not challenge her removability.

A. Application for Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Relief

In August 2010, Wang filed an application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and CAT relief based on her religion. Wang attached a personal 

statement in which she attested that she feared persecution in China based on her 

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 2 of 12 
3

Christian belief and her intent, if she returned there, to attend an illegal 

underground “house church” rather than a state-controlled public church. She was 

afraid the government would detain her if she was caught attending a house church 

because her sister-in-law, Chunmei Liu, had been arrested after she was caught 

attending a house church, was kept for several days, and was warned not to attend 

underground churches. In support of her application, Wang submitted: (1) a 

certificate of baptism, (2) a church attendance certificate from the church where 

she was baptized, (3) photographs of Wang taken at her baptism, and (4) 

photographs of Wang taken at church. 

Wang also submitted two affidavit letters from Liu, her sister-in-law in 

China. In the first letter, Liu stated that she and Wang were from the same village 

in the Fujian Province. In March 2010, government officers caught Liu in a house 

church, detained her for several days, and warned her not to attend a house church 

again. Moreover, the government recently had strengthened its efforts to suppress 

house churches. In the second letter, Liu recounted that in June 2010, three days 

after sending her first letter, she was again arrested for attending a house church

after someone reported her for gathering church members in her home. The police 

asked her to name the people who attended the gathering, but she refused. The 

police kept her in a “separate room” and “[a]t first” did not give her food or water

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 3 of 12 
4

or allow her to contact her family. The police detained her for about two weeks 

until her husband and other church members paid her bail. 

B. Hearing before IJ

At the removal hearing, Wang, represented by counsel, testified that she was 

from Lianjiang City in the Fujian Province. Wang started attending Christian 

services in the United States after her mother became ill and a friend introduced 

her to the church. At the time of the hearing, she attended a Chinese Presbyterian 

church in Florida. Wang testified that she would continue to practice her religion 

if she returned to China by spreading the Gospel and attending an underground 

church. Although public Christian churches were legal in China, she did not 

consider these churches “real Christian” churches because the pastors’ messages 

must be approved by the government. Wang feared that she would be arrested and 

beaten for her participation in an underground church based on Liu’s arrests. 

Wang also testified that her two older brothers (including Liu’s husband), 

one older sister, her mother, and her father lived in China and attended 

underground churches. Wang was not aware of any instance in which these family 

members had been arrested or detained for attending underground churches. 

A friend of Wang and the wife of Wang’s pastor both testified that Wang 

was a devout Christian who attended church almost every week. The pastor’s wife

also testified that she and the pastor had been in the United States for eleven years, 

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 4 of 12 
5

and the pastor went back to China on mission trips almost every year. The pastor 

had never been arrested on these mission trips because the house churches were 

very secretive. Prior to moving to the United States, the pastor’s wife practiced 

Christianity in China for nearly twenty years, and she had only a single incident in 

which she was almost arrested for spreading the Gospel. 

In addition to Wang’s application and the above-described testimony, the 

record before the IJ included letters from family members and a friend that 

vouched for Wang’s sincere belief in Christianity and her regular attendance at 

church. 

The record also included several annual reports on China from 2007 through 

2011 by the U.S. Department of State, the Congressional-Executive Commission 

on China, and the China Aid Association. The reports generally indicated that the 

Chinese government sought to restrict religious practices to registered places of 

worship and to repress unregistered Protestant churches but that the restrictions on 

unregistered religious groups differed in degree and varied significantly from 

region to region. Religious repression was most severe in the Xinjiang Uyghur 

Autonomous Region and Tibet. However, certain parts of China, like Hong Kong, 

protected and respected religious freedom. One report included a list of reported 

persecution cases by region and province, and the Fujian Province had only one 

case of detention. 

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 5 of 12 
6

According to another report, the degree of government interference in 

unregistered churches ranged from minimal supervision to raids to arrests and 

imprisonment for unauthorized religious activity. The reports detailed specific 

incidents of religious freedom restriction, including cases in which the Chinese 

government had shut down unregistered churches and detained or physically 

abused individuals, in particular church leaders, involved with unregistered 

churches. Unregistered religious adherents were among those housed in high 

security mental hospitals where patients were forced to take medicines and 

subjected to shock treatment. Activists who were in administrative detention 

reported that they were beaten, force-fed medications, and denied food. 

The reports also reflected that, although generally the Chinese government’s 

respect for religious freedom had declined and religious persecution had escalated 

in recent years, freedom to participate in religious activities had increased in 

several areas, underground church communities had grown over the past few 

decades, and religious participation had grown overall. An estimated 50 to 70 

million people practiced Christianity in unregistered churches in China. Moreover, 

government officials had allowed increased space for unregistered churches that 

they viewed as non-threatening. Finally, the government permitted individuals to 

proselytize in registered places of worship. 

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 6 of 12 
7

C. IJ’s Order

The IJ denied Wang’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

CAT relief. In his oral decision, the IJ concluded that Wang’s asylum application 

was timely filed and that Wang was credible in her commitment to Christianity. 

However, Wang did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on 

her religion. Furthermore, because Wang had failed to satisfy the lower burden of 

proof for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent burden of proof 

for withholding of removal. Finally, Wang presented no testimony that she would 

be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a Chinese government official, so she 

failed to show entitlement to CAT relief. 

D. Appeal to BIA

Wang filed a notice of appeal to the BIA. She argued based on the 

testimony and documentary evidence in the record that she had met her burdens for 

eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. 

The BIA dismissed Wang’s appeal. Although Wang credibly demonstrated 

that she was a Christian, she did not have an objectively reasonable fear of 

persecution on account of her religion, such that she did not show entitlement to 

asylum. The evidence showed widely varying interference with unregistered house 

churches throughout China. Moreover, the prior arrests of Liu, Wang’s sister-inCase: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 7 of 12 
8

law, were insufficient to show that Wang’s fear of religious persecution in her 

home village was objectively reasonable. 

Specifically, although Liu had been arrested twice, these arrests did not rise 

to the level of persecution, and there was no evidence that Wang would be treated 

more severely than Liu. Additionally, no other members of Wang’s family had 

ever been mistreated for attending unregistered house churches. Finally, the 

testimony of the wife of Wang’s pastor that she and her husband had never been 

arrested in China for their involvement in unregistered house churches undermined 

Wang’s assertion that she would be persecuted upon her return to China. 

The BIA further determined that because Wang did not meet her burden of 

establishing eligibility for asylum, she could not satisfy the more stringent burden 

of proof for withholding of removal. Finally, she was not eligible for CAT relief 

because she had not shown that it was more likely than not that she would be 

tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government. 

Wang filed a timely petition for review in this Court. 

II. DISCUSSION

Our review of the decision of the BIA is highly deferential. Adefemi v. 

Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1026-27 (11th Cir. 2004).

1 We must affirm if the 

 1

Because the BIA’s order neither expressly adopted the IJ’s findings nor adopted the IJ’s 

reasoning, we review only the BIA’s order, as the final agency decision. See Chacon-Botero v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 2005).

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 8 of 12 
9

decision is “‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the 

record considered as a whole.’” Id. at 1027 (quoting Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 

F.3d 1262, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2001)). Under the substantial evidence test, we 

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision of the BIA and draw 

all reasonable inferences in favor of its decision. Id. We may not “reweigh the 

evidence from scratch,” and we may reverse “only when the record compels a 

reversal.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Substantial evidence supports the finding of the BIA that Wang failed to 

establish that she has an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. Wang 

submitted evidence that her sister-in-law, Liu, had been arrested on two occasions, 

detained, and denied food and water “[a]t first” after her second arrest, but the 

record does not compel the finding that these incidents were anything more than 

harassment. The mistreatment of Liu is deplorable, but she did not suffer the 

extreme physical and mental abuse that rises to the level of persecution. Compare

Zheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2006) (listing 

decisions in which incidents of detentions, beatings, and even the deprivation of 

food did not constitute persecution), with Shi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 707 F.3d 1231, 

1232-33, 1236-39 (11th Cir. 2013) (finding past persecution where Chinese 

officials interrupted a church service to arrest petitioner and other worshippers and 

confiscate their bibles, and officials detained petitioner for seven days and 

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 9 of 12 
10

interrogated him twice concerning his church: during the first interrogation, 

officials slapped petitioner, caused him to fall to the floor by kicking his chair out 

from underneath him, accused him of lying, and threatened to beat him with a 

baton, and during the second interrogation, officials told petitioner that he had been 

brainwashed and that his mind had been “poisoned,” and then handcuffed him to 

an iron bar overnight in the rain), and Niftaliev v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1211, 

1217 (11th Cir. 2007) (finding that the cumulative effect of numerous beatings, 

arrests, searches, and interrogations, which culminated in a fifteen-day detention 

with little food or water, constitutes persecution).

Wang argues that, if removed to China, she would be persecuted by having 

to practice Christianity in secrecy, but the record does not compel that finding. 

Although this Court has held that “having to practice religion underground to avoid 

punishment is itself a form of persecution,” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 

F.3d 1341, 1354 (11th Cir. 2009), the evidence that Wang presented does not 

compel the conclusion that if she returns to China she will in fact be forced to 

practice her religion secretly. Wang relies on evidence in annual reports that 

Chinese officials have repressed religious activities and detained members of 

unregistered churches, but the reports also provide that local governments do not 

interfere with unregistered churches viewed as non-threatening; restrictions on 

religious freedom vary according to region; and certain areas protect religious 

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 10 of 12 
11

freedom. Wang testified that her mother, father, and siblings have long attended 

unregistered churches in China without incident, see Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 

F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006), and only one report in the record mentioned 

incidents of repression in the Fujian Province. The wife of Wang’s pastor testified 

that she had attended underground churches in China for nearly twenty years and 

that her husband had traveled without incident on mission trips to China during the 

past eleven years. The annual reports also provide that Christians are allowed to 

worship freely in registered churches. Thus, there was substantial evidence in the 

record that if Wang returns to China, she may be able to practice her religion

without consequence in many locations, possibly even in her hometown. For these 

reasons, Wang has not demonstrated that she has a well-founded fear of future 

persecution.

Because Wang was unable to demonstrate a well-founded fear of 

persecution, the BIA properly concluded that Wang did not qualify for withholding 

of removal. To state a claim for withholding of removal, an applicant must show 

that her “life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s 

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political 

opinion.” INA § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Because Wang failed to 

satisfy her burden to prove eligibility for asylum, she could not satisfy the more 

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 11 of 12 
12

stringent standard required for withholding of removal. See Al Najjar, 257 F.3d at 

1292-93, 1303. 

Substantial evidence also supports the finding of the BIA that Wang was not 

entitled to CAT relief. Wang relies on evidence in one report that religious 

adherents have been tortured in mental hospitals, but Wang presents no evidence to 

suggest that she will be singled out for such mistreatment if she returns to China. 

Although Liu mentioned that she had been denied food and water “[a]t first,” Liu 

does not suggest that she was deprived of food and water for a lengthy period. 

Wang failed to submit evidence that would compel a conclusion that she is more 

likely than not to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of government officials. 

See Todorovic v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2010).

For all of the foregoing reasons, we deny Wang’s petition. 

PETITION DENIED. 

Case: 13-13262 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 12 of 12