[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-13484

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A087-881-063

YANLING LI, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(March 29, 2017)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Yanling Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order 

that affirmed the denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal 

Case: 16-13484 Date Filed: 03/29/2017 Page: 1 of 8 
2

under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention 

Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or 

Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals 

affirmed the findings of the immigration judge that Li failed to establish she had 

suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on 

her participation in an unregistered church in China. We deny Li’s petition.

Because the Board agreed with the findings of the immigration judge, we 

review both their decisions. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th 

Cir. 2010). We review de novo the legal conclusions of the Board and the 

immigration judge, and we review related findings of fact for substantial evidence. 

Id. at 948. The substantial evidence test requires that we affirm the decision so 

long as it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the 

record considered as a whole.” Id. (quoting Silva v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 448 F.3d 1229, 

1236 (11th Cir. 2006)). We can reverse “only when the record compels a reversal; 

the mere fact that the record may support a contrary conclusion is not enough to 

justify a reversal of the administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 

1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

The Attorney General has authority to grant asylum to an alien who qualifies 

as a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A refugee is “any person who is outside 

any country of such person’s nationality . . . who is unable or unwilling to return to

Case: 16-13484 Date Filed: 03/29/2017 Page: 2 of 8 
3

. . . [or] to avail him or herself of the protection of that country because of 

persecution or a well–founded fear of persecution on account of . . . religion.” Id.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A). To attain refugee status, an alien must present specific and 

credible evidence that she had been persecuted earlier or has a well–founded fear 

that she will face persecution based on one of the protected grounds. Ruiz v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)).

Persecution is an “extreme concept” requiring evidence of more than 

harassment or “a few isolated incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.” 

Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir. 2005). We evaluate 

the harms suffered cumulatively in determining whether an alien was persecuted.

Shi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 707 F.3d 1231, 1235 (11th Cir. 2013). A well-founded fear 

of future persecution exists only if the alien establishes that there is a reasonable 

possibility she will be singled out for persecution on account of a protected ground 

and that her fear of persecution is “subjectively genuine and objectively 

reasonable.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Alternatively, the alien can present evidence that she is a member of, or is 

identified with, a group that is subject to a “pattern or practice” of persecution. Id.

“Minor physical abuse and brief detentions do not amount to persecution.” 

Id. at 1353. Evidence that an alien was imprisoned for 36 hours in a small cell with

Case: 16-13484 Date Filed: 03/29/2017 Page: 3 of 8 
4

12 people, forced to drink a “very dirty liquid” and eat something “very bad,” and 

endured being hit with a belt and kicked, which caused lacerations and bruising 

that required treatment for two days in a hospital did not compel a finding of 

persecution in Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168, 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 

2008). Nor, we concluded, was an alien persecuted when he was imprisoned for 

four days, during which he was interrogated for five hours and beaten, and was 

monitored after his release. Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1353. And in Zheng v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 451 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2006), we concluded that evidence of an alien 

being imprisoned for five days, forced to watch reeducation videos, stand in the 

sun for two hours, and sign a pledge agreeing to forsake his religion did not 

establish past persecution. Id. at 1289, 1291–92. 

Exposure to a variety of harms for a prolonged period can rise to the level of 

persecution. For example, in Shi we concluded that an alien suffered past 

persecution when officials barged into his father’s home, confiscated bibles, 

imprisoned him for seven days, subjected him to two interrogations during which 

he was assaulted while being questioned about his church and accused of traitorous 

conduct, and handcuffed him to an iron bar located outside where he remained 

overnight in the rain. 707 F.3d at 1232–33. That “sequence of experiences,” we 

held, amounted to “extreme and egregious” maltreatment that constituted 

persecution. Id. at 1235; see Niftaliev v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 

Case: 16-13484 Date Filed: 03/29/2017 Page: 4 of 8 
5

2007) (the cumulative effect of beatings, arrests, searches, interrogations, being 

imprisoned for 15 days during which he was given little food or water and 

threatened with being shot, and continuing to be stalked, threatened, and assaulted 

after relocating amounted to past persecution). Shi being imprisoned for a week 

and undergoing two interrogations during which he was slapped in the face, 

threatened with more serious harm, and had a chair kicked out from under him was 

more grievous than the experiences of the aliens in Djonda and Zheng who, we 

explained, were subject to shorter “detention[s] combined with some physical 

abuse.” Shi, 707 F.3d at 1237. Those aliens, we explained, had not also endured a 

church raid, impounding of their religious materials, and the “singularly cruel . . . 

tactic” perpetrated on Shi of being shackled to a post and exposed to harsh 

weather. Id. at 1237–39. And, disparate from the aliens in Djonda and Zheng, Shi’s 

ordeal did not end until after officials sensed he might die from a high fever and 

sore throat. Id. at 1237–38. The brutalities heaped on Shi “[rose] to the extreme 

level required to compel a finding of persecution.” Id. at 1239.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Li failed to establish that she 

suffered past persecution in China for her participation in an unregistered church.

Li’s short detention, minor injuries, and post-release inconveniences were not on 

par with the “extreme and egregious” abuse in Shi, id. at 1235. Officials arrested Li 

during a meeting of an unregistered church and confiscated materials, but Li’s

Case: 16-13484 Date Filed: 03/29/2017 Page: 5 of 8 
6

detention lasted only four days. She underwent just one interrogation during which 

she sustained a single punch to the face and one lash on the back for which she was 

treated for bruises and dizziness during a 30-minute doctor visit. The aliens in 

Djonda and Kazemzadeh endured similar or worse abuse than Li. See Djonda, 514 

F.3d at 1171, 1174 (suffering lacerations and bruising that was treated during a 

two-day stay in a hospital was not persecution); Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1351

(being incarcerated for 4 days and undergoing a 5-hour interrogation and being 

beaten did not amount to past persecution). And like the aliens in Kazemzadeh and 

Zheng, Li was required to sign a “promise letter” before her release and required to 

return to the police station weekly. Considered cumulatively, Li’s mistreatment did 

not “rise to the extreme level required to compel a finding of persecution.” Shi, 707 

F.3d at 1239. Because Li failed to establish past persecution, she was not entitled 

to a presumption that she faced future persecution. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 

1351 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)). 

Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Li does not have a wellfounded fear of future persecution based on her religious activities. Li submitted 

several reports on country conditions, the 2007 Asylum Profile, and the 2013 

International Religious Freedom Report stating that members of unregistered 

churches undergo some harassment and mistreatment by Chinese officials, but 

those reports also stated that the penalties imposed on unregistered churches vary 

Case: 16-13484 Date Filed: 03/29/2017 Page: 6 of 8 
7

in different regions and some localities tolerate the churches. The reports stated 

that church leaders and religious dissidents were punished more severely, but Li 

introduced no evidence that she was or would be regarded as more than a 

congregant of an unregistered church. Li also failed to introduce any evidence that

Chinese officials had targeted unregistered churches in her province or had 

harassed or limited the travel of or work available to other congregants who were 

arrested with her. Li stated in her application that local officials had visited her 

family, threatened to prosecute them if they withheld information about her 

location, and warned that Li was “in serious trouble,” but those encounters failed to 

establish that she faced future persecution. And a report prepared by the Law 

Library of Congress stated there was no “authoritative information” that persons 

“released on supervision after being temporarily detained or subject to short term 

administrative detention . . . would be arrested upon returning to China.” Li’s 

evidence does not compel the conclusion that she is a member of or identified with 

a group subject to a “pattern or practice” of persecution or that she will be singled 

out for persecution if she returns to China. See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1352.

Li also does not qualify for withholding of removal or relief under the 

Convention. Li had to prove, respectively, that it is more likely than not that her 

“life or freedom would be threatened in [China] because of . . . religion,” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(b)(3)(A), or that “she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country 

Case: 16-13484 Date Filed: 03/29/2017 Page: 7 of 8 
8

of removal,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3). Because Li cannot satisfy the standard to 

obtain asylum relief, she necessarily fails to qualify under the more stringent 

standards imposed for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention. See 

Zheng, 451 F.3d at 1292.

We DENY Li’s petition for review.

Case: 16-13484 Date Filed: 03/29/2017 Page: 8 of 8