Opinion ID: 3168298
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Well‐Founded Fear of Future Persecution

Text: Chen additionally contends that he has demonstrated a “well‐founded fear of future persecution” on account of a political opinion through the following: (1) his post‐ 16 No. 15‐1831 detainment police surveillance and travel restrictions and (2) continued police inquiries into his location. To establish a well‐founded fear of future persecution, an asylum applicant “must satisfy both the objective and sub‐ jective prongs of the well‐founded fear standard.” Ayele v. Holder, 564 F.3d 862, 868 (7th Cir. 2009). The subjective com‐ ponent “often depends upon the applicantʹs own credibility and testimony.” Id. In contrast, the objective prong requires evidence that there is a “reasonable probability” that the ap‐ plicant “will be singled out individually for persecution” or that “there is a pattern or practice of persecution of an iden‐ tifiable group” to which the applicant belongs. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Chen first argues because he suffered past persecution in the form of post‐detainment police surveillance and travel restrictions and is therefore entitled to a presumption of a well‐founded fear of future persecution. Assuming that Chen could overcome Weiping Chen and establish expression of a political opinion, this argument still fails because of his inconsistent testimony and lack of cor‐ roborating evidence. Chen initially testified that he left Chi‐ na because he could not live under police surveillance but then conceded he only had to report to police twice and did not allude to any mistreatment during those times. Regard‐ ing police surveillance, Chen did not provide the required corroborating evidence to support this assertion. In terms of reporting to the police, we have held that periodic question‐ ing by police does not constitute persecution. E.g., Mekhtiev v. Holder, 559 F.3d 725, 730 (7th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Chen is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of a well‐founded fear of future persecution. No. 15‐1831 17 Chen also argues that he has established a well‐founded fear of future persecution because of continued police in‐ quiries into his location. Chen’s argument is meritless because he has not demon‐ strated an objectively reasonable fear. His argument is un‐ dercut by his inconsistent testimony and lack of corroborat‐ ing evidence. On one hand, Chen had testified that he fears the police will be “enraged” at him and incarcerate him be‐ cause he was supposed to remain under surveillance. On the other hand, he gave conflicting testimony about whether the police were even still looking for him. Additionally, Chen initially stated that his wife had fled their home to avoid po‐ lice harassment but then admitted that his wife lived at home and had informed him that the police were still look‐ ing for him. Moreover, Chen provides no corroborating evi‐ dence to support any of these assertions. In other words, Chen has not shown a “reasonable possibility” that he will be persecuted if returned to China. Ayele, 564 F.3d at 868. We thus hold that the IJ’s alternative finding that Chen was ineligible for asylum relief was supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a conclusion oth‐ erwise.