Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shaohua He v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

March 27, 2015

SHAOHUA HE, Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

Argued: January 27, 2015.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A089 697 156.

For Shaohua he, Petitioner: Scott I. Yu, Attorney, Scott YU And Associates Limited, Chicago, IL.

For ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent: Anthony P. Nicastro, Attorney, OIL, Attorney, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC.

Before POSNER, SYKES, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Hamilton, Circuit Judge.

Shaohua He, a citizen of China, petitions for review from the denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal based on his fear of future persecution because he is a practicing Christian. His petition, however, focuses on only the underlying denial of his application for asylum and withholding--a ruling that is not properly before us. Because He has not even tried to show that the denial of his motion to reconsider was erroneous, we deny his petition for review.

Page 881

He testified that he entered the United States in 2007 in circuitous fashion through Indonesia and Canada before arriving in New York. He came to Chicago a year later, he said, to retain an attorney to apply for asylum based on mistreatment (arrest and beatings, though the details are unclear) that he had suffered in Fujian Province on account of his Christian beliefs. A month after he filed his application, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with re-movability as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).

At his removal hearing, He testified about the mistreatment he experienced because of his membership in a Christian house-church movement known as the Shouters, which the Chinese government has branded an " evil cult." [1] In June 2006 he was arrested while trying to recruit new members with fellow Shouters. He was held at a detention center for two weeks, during which he says he was beaten four times. He says he was bailed out with the help of a fellow church-goer and later sought medical attention for injuries to his face. After his release he was required to report to the police every two weeks. Aided by " snakeheads," he departed China in 2006, leaving behind a wife and three children. About a year after arriving, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

The immigration judge denied He all relief. The judge found that He's testimony was not credible and that he failed (in this case under the REAL ID Act) to provide corroborating evidence to support his claim. The judge found He's testimony incredible because it was " extremely vague," " internally inconsistent" with respect to several details (including the date when he became a Shouter and the number of police officers who entered the house church to arrest him), and incomplete regarding basic aspects of his claim. The judge found He statutorily ineligible for asylum because he did not file his application within one year of his arrival in the United States. (The judge refused to credit He's account of when he arrived because of his " materially inconsistent statements regarding his time, place, and manner of entry." ) The judge also found He ineligible for withholding or CAT protection because he failed to show it is more likely than not that his life would be threatened or that he would be tortured in China. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the immigration judge's ruling.

He then hired his current attorney, Scott Yu, who filed a motion to reconsider with the Board, arguing that the Board had erred in upholding the judge's findings regarding He's lack of credibility and corroboration. The Board denied the motion on August 26, 2014. He then filed this petition for re-view, but he had not filed a

Page 882

timely petition for review of the underlying ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.