Court Opinion

ID: 9485166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 10:46:56.917033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:52.205044
License: Public Domain

MATHESON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Mr. Pang presented a strong and sympathetic claim for refugee status based on past persecution. He resisted China’s coercive population control program, experienced his spouse’s forced sterilization, and endured significant government economic sanctions. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found Mr. Pang to be credible but, focusing largely on Mr. Pang’s economic harm, rejected the past persecution claim.
The standard of review for this appeal permits reversal only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Sidabutar v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir.2007) (quotations omitted). In my view, the evidence supports that Mr. Pang suffered past persecution. Whether the evidence compels this finding is a harder question. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it....”) (emphasis in original).
Constrained by the highly deferential standard of review, and noting the substantial evidence on lack of a well-founded fear of future persecution, I concur in the result.