Opinion ID: 2708798
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plausibility of Tian’s testimony

Text: First, we address the government’s argument that Tian waived review of the Board’s determination finding implau‐ sible his claim that he was detained and beaten in China for participating in the 1989 demonstration. The government argues that Tian summarily claims that he truthfully testified about his past persecution, but does not otherwise contest the Board’s finding of implausibility. We require “an argu‐ ment consisting of more than a generalized assertion of er‐ ror” to hold that an issue has not been waived in the brief‐ ing. Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001)). Tian does not meet this burden in asserting the plausibil‐ ity of his past persecution in China, as he articulates no co‐ gent argument to challenge the Board’s finding of implausi‐ bility. “The failure to adequately develop and support [this argument] results in waiver.” Long‐Gang Lin v. Holder, 630 F.3d 536, 543 (7th Cir. 2010). But even if he had not waived this challenge, we would agree with the agency’s determina‐ tion on the merits. The immigration judge and the Board reasonably deter‐ mined that Tian’s claim of persecution was implausible in view of the totality of his claim. We review the immigration No. 13‐2130 11 judge and the Board under the deferential substantial evi‐ dence standard, meaning that we may only reverse their fac‐ tual findings if the facts compel an opposite conclusion. Ba‐ logun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 507 (7th Cir. 2004). The record shows that Tian remained in China for more than ten years after his alleged persecution, and continued working at the same government‐owned restaurant where he had worked before the demonstration without further persecution from Chinese authorities. During his time there, he was eventually promoted to head chef. Furthermore, the government even permitted him to leave China to participate in a culinary ex‐ change program. Upon arriving in the United States, Tian did not apply for asylum for seven years, and it appears the application was inspired by his being placed in removal pro‐ ceedings in the United States. These facts, combined with the absence of specific details about his mistreatment in the past, reasonably lead to the conclusion that Tian was not fleeing persecution in China when he arrived in the United States in 2001. Nor does Tian present us with any information to sus‐ pect there will be persecution in Tian’s future, should he re‐ turn to China. The evidence certainly does not compel the conclusion that Tian will be persecuted should he return there.