Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Li Liu v. Gonzales
Citation: 221 F. App'x 17Docket: No. 04-1960-ag
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; February 20, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Li Liu, a Chinese citizen, is seeking review of a BIA order from March 23, 2004, which upheld an immigration judge's (IJ) decision from October 25, 2002, denying his asylum and withholding of removal applications. The appellate court reviews the IJ's decision as supplemented by the BIA, applying a de novo standard for legal sufficiency and a substantial evidence standard for factual findings. Liu argues that he can prove past persecution through harm to his wife, referencing certain case precedents. However, the court distinguishes Liu's situation from those precedents, noting that the relevant statute and case law specifically address reproductive persecution due to forced abortion or sterilization, which does not extend to general harm to a spouse. Additionally, the court contrasts Liu's circumstances with those of a child in a similar case who witnessed violence, emphasizing that Liu is not a child and did not witness any violent acts. Consequently, the agency's conclusion that Liu did not experience past persecution is upheld. In *Matter of Acosta*, the BIA defined past persecution as harm inflicted to punish an individual for their beliefs or characteristics. Persecution must exceed mere harassment and can include non-life-threatening violence and economic harm, provided there is a deliberate substantial economic disadvantage. Liu's brief detention, without abuse or harm, was deemed insufficient to constitute persecution. His ability to secure part-time work after losing his permanent job indicated he did not experience significant economic disadvantage. The BIA concluded Liu faced no past persecution, as his claims were based on two incidents without lasting impact. Furthermore, Liu's fear of future persecution was not supported by evidence, as the BIA found no targeting of individuals acknowledged as non-practitioners of Falun Gong by the Chinese government. Although the BIA mistakenly referred to Liu's wife as a former practitioner, this error was considered harmless since her lack of subsequent contact with authorities was the critical point. The BIA's determinations regarding past and future persecution were upheld, leading to the denial of Liu's asylum claim and the higher standard for withholding of removal. The petition for review was denied, but a stay of removal was granted, with the request for oral argument denied.