[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10978 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A073-057-039

XING HUI DONG, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(October 22, 2013)

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-10978 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Xing Hui Dong, a Chinese national, seeks review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application 

for political asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1) and 8 

U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). On appeal, Dong argues that the BIA erred in finding that 

he did not show that he suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of 

future persecution.

I.

Xing Hui Dong fled to the United States after he and his wife violated

China’s one-child birth control policy. The couple had their first child in 1982 and 

a second child in 1984. In 1985 Chinese family planning officials learned that 

Dong’s wife was pregnant with a third child. They forced Dong’s wife to abort the 

pregnancy and undergo sterilization. The officials also fined Dong and his wife 

2,000 renminbi (RMB), or about $693, although Dong and his wife only earned 80 

to 90 RMB per month.

Dong did not pay the fine, and family planning officials repeatedly came to 

his home demanding payment. During one visit the officials struck Dong while 

confiscating his television. He decided to flee China in 1989 and was admitted to

the United States that same year after paying smugglers $20,000 to bring him here. 

His wife remained in China. Since he fled, officials have increased his fine twice. 

Case: 13-10978 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 2 of 7 
3

In 1995 it was changed to 30,000 RMB (about $3,625) and in 2010 it was raised to 

150,000 RMB (about $22,000). The authorities still visit Dong’s wife on occasion 

to try to collect the fine.

While in the United States, Dong has worked as a cook and held various 

part-time jobs. The most he was ever able to earn in a single year was $20,000, but

his annual income has dropped to about $7,000 in recent years. He claims that he 

works less frequently now because of his declining health. Dong has also acquired 

several assets over the years. He purchased a duplex in 2001 for $40,000 in cash, 

which he owns free of any liens. The duplex has an appraised value of about 

$71,000. He also owns a 1998 Lexus that he estimates is worth about $2,000. 

In Dong’s removal proceedings, the IJ initially granted him asylum on the 

basis that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ relied on the 

fact that Chinese officials had attempted to collect the fine many times over the 

years and had increased the fine “in a very unreasonable manner.” The 

Department of Homeland Security appealed the IJ’s decision. The BIA reviewed 

the IJ’s decision and determined that Dong had failed to establish past persecution; 

however, it remanded the proceedings for further factfindings regarding Dong’s 

current financial circumstances to determine whether the increased fine would 

qualify as a severe economic disadvantage. On remand, the IJ determined that the 

Case: 13-10978 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 3 of 7 
4

fine would not cause a severe economic disadvantage and that Dong had thus not 

established a well-founded fear of future persecution. Accordingly, the IJ denied 

Dong’s asylum request. The BIA upheld that decision, and Dong now petitions 

this court for review.

II.

“Where the BIA issues a decision, we review that decision, except to the 

extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 

1228, 1230 (11th Cir. 2006). “Insofar as the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we 

review the IJ’s decision as well.” Id. We review factual findings under a “highly 

deferential” substantial evidence test, whereby we “must affirm the BIA’s decision 

if it is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record 

considered as a whole.” Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 

2001) (quotation marks omitted). We will reverse the BIA only if we find that the 

record compels reversal. See Fahim v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1218 (11th 

Cir. 2002). 

To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant “must, with specific and 

credible evidence, establish (1) past persecution on account of race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; or (2) a 

well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily-protected 

Case: 13-10978 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 4 of 7 
5

ground.” Chen, 463 F.3d at 1231.1 Demonstrating past persecution creates a 

“rebuttable presumption” of a well-founded fear of future persecution, but without 

this showing a petitioner “must demonstrate a well-founded fear of future 

persecution that is both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” Ruiz v. 

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

Persecution is “an extreme concept requiring more than a few isolated 

incidents of verbal harassment or intimidation.” Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 

766 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). It may be shown from significant 

physical abuse, see id., but “[m]inor physical abuse and brief detentions do not 

amount to persecution.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1353 

(11th Cir. 2009). Persecution is not limited to severe physical mistreatment; it also 

includes severe economic sanctions. See In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 163 (BIA 

2007). For example, fines may amount to persecution if they cause a “severe 

economic disadvantage” considering an alien’s net worth, other sources of income, 

and the conditions of the local economy. See id. at 173–74 (quotation marks 

 

1 Forced abortion, sterilization, and punishment for resisting a forced population control 

program qualify as persecution on account of political opinion under the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). A husband is not automatically entitled to 

refugee status because his wife was subjected to a forced abortion or sterilization. See Yu v. 

U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Instead, that husband must 

show that he personally was persecuted, either by undergoing involuntary sterilization himself or 

by resisting the coercive family planning policy. See id. at 1333. 

Case: 13-10978 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 5 of 7 
6

omitted). To satisfy that severe economic disadvantage standard, a fine should 

reduce an alien “to an impoverished existence.” Id. at 174. However, an alien 

does not need to demonstrate that the fine would cause “a total deprivation of 

livelihood or a total withdrawal of all economic opportunity in order to 

demonstrate harm amounting to persecution.” Id. at 173.

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that 

Dong did not show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.2

Although Dong was struck by Chinese officials when they confiscated his 

television, such “[m]inor physical abuse . . . do[es] not amount to persecution.”

See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1353. Substantial evidence also supports the 

conclusion that Dong’s fine does not amount to economic persecution considering 

(1) he secured $20,000 to pay a smuggler to take him to the United States (when 

the amount of his fine was under $700), (2) he currently owns a duplex, which is 

free of liens and valued at $71,000, that he purchased in 2001 for $40,000 in cash, 

(3) he owns a used Lexus automobile that he values at $2,000, and (4) he has

earned an annual income of $7,000 in recent years. Although we note that the 

increase in Dong’s fine is substantial, his financial assets still support the 

 

2 Dong argues that the IJ committed reversible error by not reevaluating his past 

persecution claim on remand. We do not agree. The additional evidence that Dong presented to 

the IJ on remand was not sufficient to compel a finding of past persecution.

Case: 13-10978 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 6 of 7 
7

determination that the larger fine would not reduce him to “an impoverished 

existence.” Accordingly, we cannot say that the record compels reversal. See

Fahim, 278 F.3d at 1218.

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 13-10978 Date Filed: 10/22/2013 Page: 7 of 7