Opinion ID: 781977
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Whole Record

Text: 67 The BIA's ruling did not mention Qiu's testimony regarding the smashing up of his home by the birth control team, the exclusion of his fourth child from school and from food subsidies, and Qiu's 1981 dismissal from his job, all of which, Qiu alleges, occurred because of his family's violation of population policies—and all of which fit the pattern of family planning enforcement as described by the State Department report. 15 It cannot be said that these events are too insignificant to merit discussion. Cf. Douglas v. INS, 28 F.3d at 244. To the contrary, (1) they might be thought incidents of persecution on account of resistance to the population control policy, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42), and (2) they further suggest that China was vigorously pursuing its population policy with respect to Qiu and his family. 16 68