9th Circuit Finds Chinese Christian Refugee Has Fear of Political Persecution

In Li v. Holder, (9th Cir., March 23, 2009), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Board of Immigration Appeals wrongly rejected an application for asylum by Xun Li, a former member of a Christian house church in China who had come to the U.S. after Chinese police questioned him, beat him and sent him to a labor camp. The action was taken against Li because he had given shelter to two North Korean Christians who had fled to China. The court concluded that this created a presumption that Li had a well-founded fear he would suffer persecution on account of his political opinion if he returned to China. It disagreed with the Immigration Judge's conclusion that Li merely faced legitimate prosecution in China since no Chinese law banned giving assistance to illegal aliens. In a 31-page opinion, the court explained:

Li refused to obey the nebulous, unwritten policy that undocumented North Korean refugees should receive no aid from Chinese citizens, rather than leaving the refugees to starve, abject and unsheltered, or reporting them to the government to face repatriation and possible execution. Li was motivated by a moral obligation to protect and ease the suffering of the refugees... Though Li did not explicitly state his political disagreement with the policy until he was detained and interrogated, his actions clearly indicated his opposition before that point. One who is persecuted for protesting with lawful deeds is just as worthy of asylum under our laws as one who protested with words.... Thus, Li's defiance of his government's unofficial policy gives rise to an inference that the ensuing attacks and beatings were on account of his political opinion, particularly when no other logical explanation for the attacks exists....

Concluding that Li had been subjected to political persecution, the court did not need to reach his claim of religious persecution, even though Chinese police had also questioned Li about his church affiliation. The court remanded the case for a determination of whether changed country conditions rebut the presumption of fear of future persecution. National Law Journal reports on the decision. [Thanks to Alliance Alert for the lead.]