1

09-5258

- ag J i an Q ui Li u v. H ol der

UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT Aug us t T er m, 201 0 (S ub mi tt ed: J anu ary 10 , 20 11 Dec id ed: J anu ary 24 , 20 11) Do cket No . 09 -5 258 -a g J I A N Q U I L IU , Petitioner

, v . E RI C H. H OLDER , J R ., At tor ne y G en er a l o f th e U ni te d S ta te s,

Res po nde nt . B ef or e: F EI NBERG , C AB R ANES , and R A GGI , Circuit Jud

ges .
Fe ng L i, M os lem i an d As s oci ate s , I nc. , N ew Yo r k, N Y, for Petitio ner . James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation C ounsel, Office of Immigration Litigation (Tony West, Assis tant Attorney General, a nd Emily A nne Radf or d, As s is tan t D ir ect or , O ff ice o f I mm igr ati onLi tigat

io n, o n th e brief ), Civil Division, United States Department of Jus tice, W ashington, DC, for Respondent.2

P ER C URI AM : Petitioner Jian Qiu Liu, a native a nd citize n of the People’s Republic of China, see ks review of a November 30, 2009, order of the Board of I mmigration Appea ls (“B IA”), vaca ting and reversing the J anu ary 28 , 20 08, dec is io n o f I mm igr ati onJ ud ge ( “I J ”) T ho mas J . M ullig an, whi ch gr ant ed his app lic ati onfo r

as ylu m. In

re Ji an Qi u Liu , N o. A09 9 99 3 93 8 ( B .I .A. No v. 3 0, 2 009 ), v

acat ing and r ev ’g No . A0 99 9 93 9 38 (

I mm ig. Ct. N. Y.C. J an. 28, 200 8)
. At hi s r emo val

hear in g, L iute s ti fi ed that

he an d h is wif

e hada daught er

bo r n i n Augus t 2 002
. Sh or tl y t her eaf te r , a go ver nm ent

of fi cial r equ es te d that

Li u’ s wif e wear an i nt r aut er

in e de vic e ( “I UD ”)
. B ef or e de cidin g onwhe th er

to im pl ant

this dev ice, Li u’ s wif

e di s cov er ed that

s he w as pr egn ant . Af

te r learning of this development, Liu a nd his wife went to hide a t the home of Liu’s aunt, which wa s about fo ur ho ur s away. On March 13, 2003, five fa mily pla nning officials “barge d” into the aunt’s house and asked to
see a bi rth pe rmi t. W he n n on e c ou ld be pro du ce d, the se o ffi ci a ls d em a nd ed tha t Li u’ s wi fe be ta ke n so that a forced abortion could be perform ed. As Liu’s wife was being “ dragged” awa y, Liu plea ded for th e of fi cial s to s to p. Li u thentr

iedto ph ys ically s to p them . O ne o f the o ff ici als s lap pedLi u, bu t L

iu
con ti nu ed t o s trugg

le. At this po in t, s ever al o f the o ff ici als s ur r ou nd ed L

iuandpu nch ed him
r epe ate dly inth e f

ace, che s t, andback . T he p ol ice w er e lat er

call ed— af

te r th e f amily p lan ni ng o ff

ici als took Liu’s wife away

in order to perf

orm an abortion— and Liu spent two days in custody for violating Chi na’ s fa mily p lan ni ng p ol icy. Li u did no t alleg e any mi s tr eat men t d ur

in g hi s det ent

io n. Li u was abl e to leav e Chi na thr ee yea r s lat er , inM ay 20 06. On January 28, 2008 , the IJ is sued an oral dec ision granting Liu’s application for asylum. The IJ deemed Liu’s testimony to be credible. R elying on our decision in Besko vic v. Go nza les , 46 7 F .3d223 (2 d Cir . 20 06) , the I

J hel d that

th e ph ys ical

con fr on tat

io n, ar r es t, anddet ent

io n d es cr ib ed b y L iucon s ti tu te dL i u ’ s req u ests for w i t hh old i ng of rem ov al an d C A T pro t ec t i on w ere d en i ed , ho w ev er. 1 3 pas t p er s ecu ti on , ther eby

ent it lin g L iuto a pr es um pt

io n o f awell -f

ou nd ed f ear of fu tu r e pe r s ecu ti on . In the absence of evide nce rebutting Liu’s presum ed we ll-founded fear of future persecution, the IJ granted Liu’s applica tion for as ylum. 1 The Department of Homeland Sec urity appea led the IJ’s asylum decision to the Board of I mm igr ati onApp eals . T he B I A acce pt ed the I J ’s cr edi bi lit

y f in di ngs , b ut

con clu dedth at the I

J er r ed i n holding that the mistreatment suf fered by Liu ros e to the leve l of persecution. Accordingly , the BIA
va ca te d a nd re ve rse d th e I J’s d ec isi on gra nti ng

Liu ’s a syl um a pp li ca ti on . Li u n owa pp ea ls. Un der th e cir cum s tan ces of

this cas e, we r evi ew o nly the B I A’s dec is io n. See Yan C hen v. Gonzales, 41 7 F .3d268 , 27 1 ( 2d Cir . 20 05) . T he ap pl

icab le s tan dar ds of

r evi ew ar e well- es tab lis hed
. See 8 U. S.C. § 12 52(

b) (4 )( B ); Aliba sic v. Mukasey , 54 7 F .3d78, 84- 85 ( 2d Cir . 20 08) . We as s es s th e agen cy’s fa ct ual fi ndin gs un der

th e s ub s tan ti al ev

id enc e s tan dar d, bu t r evi ew the B I A’s app lic ati onof leg al pri nc ip le s to u nd isp ute d fa ct s de novo
. Aliyev v . Mukasey , 549 F.3d 111, 11 5 (2d Cir. 2008). The BI A did not err in concluding tha t Liu failed to demonstr ate his eligi bility for asylum on
acco un t o f his all egedr es is tan ce t o the f amily p lan ni ng p ol

icy. See Shi Lia ng Linv. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 494 F.3d 296, 313 (2d Cir. 2007) (in banc ). Liu argues that the BI A misapplied Besko vic v. Go nza les , ante , by failing to analy ze w hether the beating occurred in the context of his arrest , and that the ha rm he
s uf fe r ed o n acc ou nt

of hi s r es is tan ce t o the f

amily p lan ni ng p ol

icy c on s ti tu te d p er s ecu ti onbec aus e it
occ ur r ed “ inth e co nt ext ” of hi s ar r es t an d d et ent

io n. Altho ughth e B I A em ph as izedth at L iu ’s mi s tr eat men t did no t o ccu r du r in g hi s tw o- day d et ent

io n wi th ou t e xp lic it

ly an alyz in g a p ot ent

ial
connec tion to the arrest , we think tha t is implicit in the overall ruling. Thus, we find no error in the BI A’s conclusion that Liu failed to establish persecution beca use subs tantial e vidence suppor ts the B I A’s fi ndin g that , prior to his arr est and detention by loc al polic e, he suffered only minor bruis ing from4

an al tercation with family

planning officia ls, which required no formal medica l attention and ha d no las ti ng p hys ical

ef fe ct . See Iv

anish vili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 433 F.3d 332, 34 1 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[W ]e
r eco gni ze that

th e di ff er enc e be tw eenhar as s men t an d p er s ecu ti onis nec es s ar ily on e of degr ee that
mu s t b e de cid ed o n a ca s e- by- cas e bas is .”) ; Ai Feng Yuanv. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 41 6 F .3d192 , 19 8 ( 2d Cir. 2005) (finding that petitioner did not suffer persecution when deta ined only briefly and not mi s tr eat ed whi le i n cu s to dy) , o v er rule d in pa rt

o n o the r g ro unds by Shi Liang Lin , 49 4 F .3d296 . L

iu presented no evidenc e that the family planning officia ls who physically attacke d him had any

intention of ar r es ti ng o r

det ainin g hi m. T he al te r cat io n o ccu r r ed o nly wh en L iuatt emp te d t o p r even t the f amily pl annin g of

fi cial s fr om tak

in g hi s wif

e, an d L iuwas lat er

ar r es te d b y lo cal p ol

ice. M or eov er , ev en as s um in g that th e B I A mi s s tat ed the Besko vic s tan dar d, we n eedno t r ema ndif do in g s o wo ul d b e f

ut ile
. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 47 1 F .3d315 , 33 8- 39 ( 2d Cir . 20 06) ; Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep ’t of Justice , 428 F.3d 391, 40 1-02 (2d Cir. 2005). W e have never held tha t a bea ting that occurs within the context of an a rres t or detention constitut es persecution per se . Rath er , we h ave held that a be ating that occ urs in the context of an a rres t or detention ma y constitute pers ecution, a nd that the age ncy must be “kee nly sensitive” to context in ev alua ting whether the ha rm s uffered ris es to the leve l of persecution
. Be

sk o v ic , 467 F.3d at 226. Here, we can c onfidently predict that the BIA on
r ema ndwould agai n f

in d n o p er s ecu ti onwhe n i t c on s id er ed the m is tr eat men t’ s con te xt , an d r eas on ably
con clu ded , that , inth e par ti cul ar cir cum s tan ces pr es ent ed, th e har m h e s uf fe r ed did no t r

is e t o the l evel of per s ecu ti on . Se e I

v anis hv ili , 43 3 F .3dat 3 41. For t he fore go in g re a son s, t he pe ti ti on for r evie w i s DE N IED . As we ha ve comple ted our
re vi ew , a ny

sta y o f re mo va l t ha t th e C ou rt p re vi ou sly gra nte d i n th is p et

itio n i s VACAT ED , and a ny pe nd in g m oti on for a sta y o f re mo va l i n th is p etitio n i s DIS MISS ED as mo ot .