Zhong Li v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 4, 2015 *
Decided December 30, 2015
Before
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
No. 15‐2257
ZHONG LI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A087‐998‐980
O R D E R
Zhong Li, a 24‐year‐old Chinese citizen, asserts that he was persecuted in his
home country for attending an underground Christian church. He petitions for review of
the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. Because the record does not compel a conclusion
contrary to that of the immigration judge’s, we deny the petition.
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 15‐2257 Page 2
Li entered the United States without permission near Hidalgo, Texas, in early
2010 and was apprehended by Border Patrol. During a subsequent credible‐fear
interview with an asylum officer, Li said, through an interpreter, that he fled China after
police had arrested and beat him several months earlier for visiting an unsanctioned
Christian church called the Church of Jesus. Li denied having been baptized, but he
described himself as a Christian based on his newfound belief in God—a belief that he
traced to his recent interactions with both evangelists and a neighbor who was healed of
“evil spirits” with the help of a group of Christians. The asylum officer found Li’s
allegations credible enough to warrant further consideration, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii), (v), and Li was released from custody pending the removal
proceedings. He then relocated to Illinois to live with a relative.
Li, through counsel, moved to change venue to Chicago. In the motion he
conceded his inadmissibility, but expressed his intention to apply for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, all on
the basis of alleged religious persecution.
In support of his applications, Li submitted an affidavit that provided new—and
sometimes conflicting—details about the persecution he alleged to have suffered in
China. Li now said that around the age of ten he began attending underground Christian
services with his parents and grandparents, and that in 2004 he was “water baptized”
before the entire congregation. With regard to the police raid on the church, he said that
many congregants had been arrested but suggested that some managed to escape. After
the arrest, he added, he was detained for two days, interrogated, shocked with stun guns
or electric batons, and forced to kneel on graveled ground—causing much pain and
bleeding on his knees and legs. Li denied paying a bond or bribe to secure his release,
but said that the open wounds on his legs became infected and required medical care on
a number of occasions. Li also said that his church building was razed by the
government just before he left China.
At his hearing before the immigration judge in April 2013, Li provided further
details at odds with his prior accounts. For example, this time he testified that he had
been baptized without water, that the church he attended was named the Housha Tang
Family Church, that none of the congregants had escaped arrest during the raid, and that
he had paid a fine to get released. When asked to explain these inconsistencies, Li
responded that he purposefully downplayed his Christianity during his credible‐fear
interview on the advice of the snakehead who helped smuggle him into the country. At
the hearing Li also introduced a few documents: a partially untranslated baptism

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 15‐2257 Page 3
certificate, a bulletin from a church in Chicago, a letter from an elder at a church in
Peoria, photographs showing the destruction of his church in China, and the State
Department’s 2011 Religious Freedom Report on China. 1
The immigration judge denied Li all relief. First she found Li not credible based
on his inconsistencies about important details of his story, including, but not limited to,
(1) whether he attended Christian services from a young age with his family or whether
he had converted to Christianity shortly before his arrest, (2) whether he was baptized
and whether the baptism was performed with or without water, (3) whether his church
in China was called the Church of Jesus or the Housha Tang Family Church, (4) whether
all of the congregants were arrested during the church raid or whether some escaped, (5)
and whether he paid a fine to secure his release from detention.
Because she found Li not credible, the immigration judge explained that the
REAL ID Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)—which governs this case—required him to
corroborate the specific details of his account, and here Li had failed to do so. Li’s
documents did not address “the specific harm the respondent claims to have suffered
due to his faith.” The immigration judge added that it was reasonable to expect Li to
submit letters from his family or fellow congregants to attest to his “arrest and
mistreatment under interrogation.” The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the
immigration judge’s order.
In his petition for review, Li challenges the immigration judge’s decision not to
credit his confusing explanation that he initially downplayed his Christian faith to the
asylum officer because he feared being returned to China. But that explanation is
difficult to square with his acknowledgement that he “came to the United States to
practice Christianity freely and openly,” and it does not account for the inconsistencies
between the 2010 affidavit and his testimony three years later before the immigration
judge. In any event, Li’s explanation for initially downplaying his Christian faith is not
so compelling as to require a reasonable factfinder to accept it. See Zeqiri v. Mukasey, 529
F.3d 364, 371 (7th Cir. 2008); Fedosseeva v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 840, 847 (7th Cir. 2007).
1 At the outset of the hearing, the immigration judge denied the request of Li’s
newly hired counsel to continue the hearing so that additional documentation could be
submitted in corroboration of his claims. The immigration judge denied the request,
explaining that the case had been pending in Chicago for two years and she had warned
Li at a prior hearing that he must be prepared to present his case. Li does not challenge
this decision.

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 15‐2257 Page 4
Li also argues that some of the supposed inconsistencies stemmed from the
explainable omission of certain details from his credible‐fear interview and affidavit. But
several of the inconsistencies cannot be reconciled without also accepting Li’s
explanation that he intentionally misled the asylum officer about his conversion. For
example, Li said in his credible‐fear interview that he never had visited a Christian
church prior to the month he was arrested, then later claimed to have joined the church
at a young age. His explanation for how he became a Christian also changed—he
initially said he was introduced to Christianity by evangelists, then said he had attended
church with his family. Likewise, Li initially denied having been baptized, then said in
his affidavit that he was “water baptized” years earlier, and then told the immigration
judge he had been “baptized” without water. These clear contradictions are not trivial,
so any one of them would have provided an adequate basis for the immigration judge’s
adverse credibility finding. See Tawuo v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2015). It is
therefore immaterial whether Li can provide plausible explanations for some of his
alleged omissions.
Further, because the immigration judge found Li incredible, it was incumbent on
him to substantiate his story with credible corroborating evidence unless it could not
reasonably be obtained. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Tian v. Holder, 745 F.3d 822, 828
(7th Cir. 2014); Raghunathan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 371, 379 (7th Cir. 2010). But Li provided
no evidence corroborating his claim that he was arrested, beaten, and interrogated for
two days due to his religious faith. Li’s hearing before the immigration judge took place
more than three years after his credible‐fear interview; during that time he remained in
communication with family members who could have potentially corroborated parts of
his story, yet he failed to produce such letters at the hearing.
A showing of past persecution raises a presumption that the applicant will be
persecuted in the future. In the absence of such a showing, petitioners must present
“specific, detailed facts showing a good reason to fear [they] will be singled out for
persecution” if they are returned. Lin v. Holder, 620 F.3d 807, 810 (7th Cir. 2010). Li has
not met this burden. It is true that the State Department report recounts instances of
persecution suffered by members of unsanctioned churches in some parts of China. The
immigration judge, however, did not credit Li’s testimony with respect to the exercise of
his religion, and, consequently, there is no reason to believe that Chinese officials would
seek out Li for retribution.

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 15‐2257 Page 5
Because Li has not established that he is entitled to asylum, he necessarily cannot
satisfy the more stringent standards for withholding of removal or for protection under
the Convention Against Torture. See Antia‐Perea v. Holder, 768 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

-- 5 of 5 --