Court Opinion

ID: 9499276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:42:54.894309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:23.287780
License: Public Domain

ROVNER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
My colleagues have written a measured decision in response to a difficult recurring asylum problem. The majority’s opinion, however, views Zhu’s claims piecemeal and concludes that he has not faced persecution. If the whole of his claims are considered, however, the evidence compels a finding of past persecution. For this reason, I dissent.
There is no dispute, of course, that Zhu bases his asylum claim on injuries he suffered as a result of his political beliefs. Opposing and resisting China’s coercive population control policy and encouraging others to resist conforming is precisely the type of political opinion that our asylum laws were written to protect. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). In the case of pregnant women who have defied Chinese authority by reproducing, Chinese authorities might respond to their opposition by subjecting the women to involuntary abortions or sterilization. U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Prac-tiees-2003, China, February 25, 2004, p. 12, 29 (hereinafter “Country Report”) (R. at 182, 198). For their male partners who voice or encourage opposition, the punishment varies. They may be arrested, fined, sterilized, interrogated, denied employment, government benefits, or property, or subject to any number of discriminatory acts. Country Report, p. 12-13 (R. at 181— 182). Their female partners might also face abortion or sterilization procedures in response to their resistance.
Zhu resisted China’s coercive population control policy in two ways. First, Zhu and his girlfriend, Yun Dong, failed to abide by the government’s request that Yun Dong terminate her pregnancy. Second, Zhu abetted Yun Dong in her efforts to hide and refused to cooperate with the authorities’ efforts to find her. In response to Zhu’s first act of resistance, government officials came to Zhu’s house to arrest and detain him in hopes of forcing Yun Dong out of hiding. When Zhu resisted arrest, the officials kicked and beat him, carrying him into the street where they hit him on the head with a brick causing a head injury requiring seven stitches.
Resolution of this matter should be straight forward. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B) declares that:
a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a *323well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B) (emphasis added). Government authorities beat and injured Zhu based on his “resistance to a coercive population control program.” The only remaining question is whether Zhu’s injuries were sufficient to constitute persecution.
As the majority correctly points out, a single episode of physical abuse can be sufficient to sustain a claim of past persecution, if it is severe enough. Asani v. INS, 154 F.3d 719, 723 (7th Cir.1998), Vaduva v. INS, 131 F.3d 689, 690 (7th Cir.1997). The majority concedes that Zhu’s head injury, which required seven stitches, is a serious one but concludes that although “[h]is injury weighs in favor of a finding of past persecution, [it] is without the typical accompanying factors that we have previously deemed significant.” Majority opinion at 320. The majority points out that a “physical injury serious enough to compel a finding of past persecution is typically accompanied by one or more additional factors that are not present here.” Id. at 319. Zhu’s beating, however, was accompanied by an additional factor — the forced abortion of his and Yun Dong’s fetus.
The majority opinion errs by bifurcating Zhu’s claim into discreet parts. First, it looks at Zhu’s claim of physical abuse and concludes that the single instance of abuse was, by itself, insufficient to support a claim of persecution. Then, it looks to see whether Zhu’s status as the non-marital partner of a woman forced to abort a pregnancy entitles him, in and of itself, to an automatic finding of past persecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B). Even were I to agree with the majority that, as a matter of law, only husbands and not unmarried partners are automatically deemed to have been persecuted under § 1101(a)(42)(B), neither this court nor the BIA can ignore the fact of a forced abortion when considering the whole of the circumstances surrounding a particular claim of persecution. In other words, the forced abortion inflicted upon Zhu’s partner may not be a fact that entitles Zhu to a per se presumption of past persecution (a question I will turn to momentarily), but neither can it be ignored as though it were entirely unrelated to the persecution at issue. The majority thought Zhu’s head injury would have been serious enough to compel a finding of past persecution only if it had been accompanied by additional factors, but then ignored the other factors. The authorities did not simply beat Zhu on the head with a brick causing an injury requiring seven stitches. They came to his house in search of his girlfriend, they kicked and punched him, and, most significantly, they aborted his and Yun Dong’s fetus, depriving him of the opportunity to parent a child, that he and Yun Dong had jointly decided to bring into the world. It seems clear to me that the evidence, when properly viewed as a whole, compels a finding of past persecution, independent of Zhu’s relationship to Yun Dong. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).
This should, in and of itself, resolve the matter for Mr. Zhu, but the majority’s discussion of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(B) and its application to non-spouses warrants further thought. As the majority points out, in 1997 the BIA construed this section to provide that the forced abortion or sterilization of one spouse is an act of persecution against the other spouse and that the spouses of those directly victimized are eligible for asylum in this country. In re C-Y-Z, 21 I. & N. Dec. 915, 919 (BIA 1997). Interestingly, this application applies to spouses regardless of whether that spouse independently resists or opposes *324the coercive population control program. A spouse who sits idly by or even supports the termination of his wife’s pregnancy nevertheless gets the protection of the statute. The BIA did not offer its rationale for extending the protection to spouses, and despite several years of prodding by the Second Circuit, still has failed to do so. See Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 449 F.3d 408, 415 (2d Cir.2006). Without such knowledge, it is difficult to know whether there is a rational basis for granting a presumption of past persecution to spouses but not to other men who impregnate women upon whom government authorities force abortions.
To support the proposition that the presumption of past persecution extends only to the husband of a woman who has been forced to have an abortion, the majority relies, in part, on our holding in Chen v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 670 (7th Cir.2006). The Chen decision did indeed “decline to extend the definition of ‘refugee’ to reach boyfriends” where there has been no extra-governmental marriage ceremony. Id. at 674. The holding in Chen, although not directly in conflict with any prior circuit decision, leaves the circuit law on this issue in an odd state of affairs. Eight months before our decision in Chen, we granted asylum to Junshao Zhang. Zhang v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 993 (7th Cir.2006). Zhang and his wife had a traditional Chinese wedding ceremony at home, but never officially registered the marriage because neither had reached the legal age for marriage in China. Id. at 995. We held that “[w]here a traditional marriage ceremony has taken place, but is not recognized by the Chinese government because of the age restrictions in the population control measures, that person nevertheless qualifies as a spouse for purposes of asylum.” Id. at 999. We reasoned that to hold otherwise would create a Catch-22.
Zhang’s asylum claim was based on China’s enforcement of its population control policy, part of which includes a minimum age requirement for marriages, and a minimum age for having children. The forcible abortion in this case occurred precisely because Zhang and his wife married and became pregnant prior to those minimum ages. The marriage is not legal in China because of the population control policy.

Id.

Despite this reasoning in Zhang, in Chen we declined to extend the protections of the asylum law to a man in significantly similar circumstances. Chen, 457 F.3d at 675. Yaun Rong Chen, like Zhang, attempted to register for a marriage license, and like Zhang, the authorities denied him the license because he and his partner, Li Ping, were too young to be legally married. Id. at 672. Unlike Zhang, however, who responded to the license denial by having a non-sanctioned wedding ceremony, Chen and Li Ping opted to co-habitate. Id. As with Zhang’s partner, Li Ping subsequently became pregnant. Chen’s efforts to marry did not end there. He tried once again to become Li Ping’s lawful husband by applying for a marriage license a second time in light of Li Ping’s pregnancy. Id. at 672. Instead of issuing the license, the town government sent a letter demanding that Li Ping “voluntarily” submit to an abortion. Id. In just a matter of days, population control officials found Li Ping and took her to a hospital to terminate her pregnancy. Id. Despite Chen’s two failed attempts at obtaining a marriage license, his co-habitation with Li Ping, and his efforts, in concert with Li Ping, to start a family, this circuit declared that Chen was merely a boyfriend and declined to extend to him the presumptions of § 1101(a)(42)(B). Id. at 674.
*325In short Chen and Zhang together, lead to an odd distinction. Men who apply for a marriage license, are denied, and enter into a traditional common law marriage in defiance of China’s laws can claim the protections of § 1101(a)(42)(B). Men who apply for a marriage license, are denied, heed the law of the land and merely coha-bitate, cannot. The latter holding ignores the rationale of Zhang which recognized that it was China’s oppressive population control measure that prevented Zhang from getting married and thus being able to take advantage of the protections 'of § 1101(a)(42)(B) in the first place. This is the Catch-22 to which we referred in Zhang. See also Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 559 (9th Cir.2004) (“[t]he BIA’s refusal to grant asylum to an individual who cannot register his marriage with the Chinese government on account of a law promulgated as part of its coercive population control policy, a policy deemed by Congress to be oppressive and prosecutory, contravenes the statute and leads to absurd and wholly unacceptable results.”) In short, in Zhang, Chen, Ma and the instant case, a woman was forced to terminate a pregnancy solely because she was not married, and the reason she was not married was because of China’s restrictive population control program.
We are treading, I fear, on indefensible ground, by relying on the persecuting country to define the parameters of a legitimate marriage. Suppose, for example, two men appear before an immigration judge in separate cases and claim that government officials forced their female partners to abort a pregnancy. The cases are identical in all respects except in the first case the couple married under the official laws of the country. In the second case, the couple applied for a marriage license but was denied because the country in which the couple resided prohibits marriages between those who are black (as is the husband) and those who are white (as is the wife). I could, of course, paint a similar scenario replacing race with religion. In fact, in Qu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir.2005), Qu and his wife were denied a birth permit because Qu’s family was affiliated with counter-revolutionary elements who adhered to Christian beliefs. Id. at 1197. It is likely that Chinese officials have denied marriage licenses to other couples based on a family history of unpopular political activity. These are precisely the sorts of restrictions on basic human rights that this country’s asylum laws were meant to protect.
The BIA need not extend asylum to every man who has impregnated a woman who was later forced to terminate a pregnancy, but I would not draw the line so solidly between married and not married. The important inquiry, it seems, ought to be the nature of the relationship between the asylum applicant and the woman who has been forced to terminate her pregnancy. See Ma, 361 F.3d at 557 (“[wjhether or not the persecuting country, China, would decline to recognize the marriage on technical grounds ... has little, if anything, to do with [an] asylum application.”) Id. In short, the competing goals of our asylum laws — to harbor those in need of asylum while weeding out illegitimate claims — can best be met in cases involving § 1101(a)(42)(B) by making the following inquiry: is the couple at issue involved in a spouse-like relationship where both parties have demonstrated an intent to enter into and sustain a long-term partnership for the purpose of raising a child together, and but for the persecuting country’s restrictive population control measures, the couple would have married. In this case, Zhu testified that he did not marry his partner, Yun Dong, because both he and Dong were too young to do so under Chinese law. (R. at 127-128). He did vow to *326support the child and, along with his parents, help raise the child, (R. at 125, 128), and therefore demonstrated a commitment to establishing a “family” as best as he could. The parents of the two teens also agreed together that they would attempt to keep and help raise the child. (R. at 105-06, 124-25). This is probably sufficient to establish the type of commitment I describe, but in any event it is a factual inquiry that ought to be made on a case-by-case basis.
The government argues that a bright line rule advances the agency’s interest in weeding out fraudulent claims. Such an argument is appealing but not entirely satisfying. Many people flee persecution without packing in their bags documentary evidence of the persecution. Gjerazi v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 800, 809 (7th Cir.2006). Many asylum applicants likely lack proof of a state sanctioned marriage, and even fewer have proof of engaging in a “traditional marriage ceremony.” Those who do have such proof are unlikely to have documentation of a forced abortion. The agency has indeed drawn a line, but whether it has any relationship to ferreting out illegitimate asylum claims is speculative at best.
In sum, putting aside the application of § 1101(a)(42)(B) to unmarried partners for a moment, I would And that Zhu suffered past persecution because he was himself persecuted for resisting China’s coercive population control program. Furthermore, because Zhu adamantly opposes the coercive birth control policies of China, he has a reasonable fear of future persecution should he return. The majority reasons that because Zhu’s partner has already been forced to abort her pregnancy, Zhu is unlikely to be subject to further persecution. Majority opinion at 321. The majority misunderstands the nature of Zhu’s persecution. The government authorities persecuted Zhu because of his opposition and resistance to China’s oppressive birth control policies. There is no evidence that he has changed his beliefs. To the contrary, one would imagine that Zhu’s personal experience has further fanned the fires of his opposition. Furthermore, Zhu is still subject to all of China’s population control measures including a limit on the number of children, further forced abortions, and underage marriage regulations should he choose to marry a woman younger than the limit set by Chinese authorities. See Zhang, 434 F.3d at 1002. Moreover, it would be convoluted indeed “to allow the act of persecution itself to constitute the change in circumstances that would result in the denial of asylum.” Id. at 1001. We should not penalize the persecuted simply because a persecutor has successfully overcome one particular act of resistance.
That alone should be sufficient for a finding of fear of future persecution, but both this court and the BIA have noted that a forced abortion creates ongoing suffering that also suffices for a finding of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Zhang, 434 F.3d at 1001-02; In re Y-TL, 23 I. & N. Dec. 601, 607 (BIA 2003). The BIA has specifically held that the fact that an asylum applicant (or the wife of an asylum applicant) has been permanently sterilized and therefore cannot be persecuted in this manner again, cannot constitute a change of circumstances for purposes of determining “fear of future persecution.” In re Y-T-L, 23 I. & N. Dec. at 607. Sterilization is a “permanent and continuing act of persecution that has deprived a couple of the natural fruits of conjugal life and the society and comfort of the child or children that might eventually have been born to them.” Id. The BIA noted that this reasoning held even more sway in the case of a forced abortion where the persecution could be repeated with future pregnancies. Id. The forced abortion deprived Zhu of the opportunity that the fetus presented — to *327someday parent that child and to realize the family that he and Yun Dong together desired and agreed to create. Zhang, 434 F.3d at 1001. The effect of that loss is ongoing and permanent. See, e.g., Qu, 399 F.3d at 1202, n. 8 (forced abortion causes irremediable and ongoing suffering of being permanently denied the potential for parenthood).
In response to Zhu’s fear of future persecution, the government’s sole argument is that Zhu could avoid punishment from his former local population control officials by relocating to another region within China. Such a life on the run might successfully prevent him from being arrested again (although if the government officials were serious about catching him, he might expose himself to trouble merely by registering to work and by paying taxes), but it certainly would not protect him from persecution for future acts in defiance of the population control policies. Although enforced erratically in various portions of the country, the policy is a national one that Zhu could not escape by relocating within the country. See Country Report, pp. 12-13 (R. at 181-182). Furthermore, “the fact that a person might avoid persecution through concealment of the activity that places her at risk of being persecuted is in no wise inconsistent with her having a well-founded fear of persecution.” Iao v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 530, 532 (7th Cir.2005). We cannot require Zhu to avoid persecution by concealing or altering his strongly held political beliefs.
Chinese authorities persecuted Zhu for his beliefs in the past, and because he has an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution should he return, I would grant the petition for review and hold that Zhu is eligible for asylum.