Siskind Susser

Green Card LotteryABCs of ImmigrationHiring A LawyerHealth Care Info CenterImmigration SitesFashion, Arts & / Sports Newsletter

Siskind Immigration Bulletin Request Consultation Ask Visalaw Client Login
About the Firm
Our Offices
Our Team
In the News
Practice Areas and Services
Scheduling a Consultation
ABCs of Immigration
Requests For Proposals
Press Room


Immigration Forms
Government Processing Times
State Department Visa Bulletin
Siskind's Immigration Professional
Working in America
Washington Updates
Publications
The Visalaw Blog

MEMBER OF THE
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION
LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION


LAUNCH CHAT

< back

 

Second Circuit Criticizes Immigration Judge for Ignoring Evidence

In the case of a Roman Catholic asylee from China, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Immigration Judge (IJ) was mistaken in his ruling.  Tian-Yong Chen fled to the US in 1995 because of religious persecution.

 

At his 1997 deportation hearing, Chen testified that he had been arrested in China in 1994 for soliciting funds for an unsanctioned Roman Catholic church in his village in the province of Fujian.  He claimed he had been interrogated, rebuked and beaten while in custody.  After his release, Chen said he continued to raise funds for the church and also wrote and distributed pamphlets about Roman Catholicism.  He testified that he fled China after hearing the police were looking to arrest him again.

 

At the hearing, the IJ allowed a 1995 State Department report in human rights in China to be admitted into evidence.  The report stated that while the Chinese government was concerned about the rapid growth of unsanctioned Christian churches, the government generally targeted religious leaders and priests rather than individual worshippers.

 

The IJ denied Chen asylum for failing to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.  The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ’s decision, stating that Chen had not testified that he had been beaten by Chinese authorities and citing the State Department report as proof that religious persecution in China was aimed at religious leaders.

 

The Second Circuit criticized immigration authorities for ignoring Chen’s claim of physical abuse by police in China.  The court decided that the BIA might have reached a different conclusion about Chen’s persecution if it had considered evidence that he had been beaten.  The Court vacated the decision and remanded the case for a new hearing with the instruction that the immigration judge not place “excessive reliance” on State Department reports, since these reports are “sometimes skewed toward governing administration’s foreign policy goals and concerns.”  The Court also noted that Chen’s participation in his church in China could make him regarded as a leader.

 

< BackIndex | Next >

 

Print This Page

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.

Siskind Susser Bland
1028 Oakhaven Rd.
Memphis, TN 38119
T. 800-343-4890 or 901-682-6455
F. 901-682-6394
Email: info@visalaw.com

Home | Immigration Bulletin | Green Card Lottery Center | ABCs of Immigration | Hiring A Lawyer
Hot Topics | Health Care Info Center | Immigration Sites | Search



This is an advertisement. Certification as an Immigration Specialist is not currently available in Tennessee. Siskind Susser Bland limits its practice strictly to immigration law, a Federal practice area, and we do not claim expertise in the laws of states other than where our attorneys are licensed. Siskind Susser Bland does not retain clients on the strength of advertising materials alone but only after following our own engagement procedures (e.g. interviews, conflict checks, retainer agreements). The information contained on this site is intended to educate members of the public generally and is not intended to provide solutions to individual problems. Readers are cautioned not to attempt to solve individual problems on the basis of information contained herein and are strongly advised to seek competent legal counsel before relying on information on this site. Siskind Susser Bland and its advertisers are independent of each other and advertisers on this site are not being endorsed by Siskind Susser Bland by virtue of the fact that they appear on this page. Site is maintained by Siskind Susser Bland's Memphis, TN office and overseen by Gregory Siskind. Copyright © 2003-2006 Siskind Susser Bland. All rights reserved.