Matter of Chen
United States Board of Immigration Appeals
20 I. & N. Dec. 16 (1989)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Chen (defendant) entered the United States from China in November 1980 as a nonimmigrant student. Chen remained in the United States beyond August 31, 1982, causing the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to charge Chen with overstaying his visa under Section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). At the deportation hearing, Chen testified that he was persecuted during the Cultural Revolution because his father was Oikai Chen, a Christian minister. During the Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards detained, interrogated, and abused Chen. Chen suffered serious injuries, including head trauma, hearing loss, and suicidal ideation. Chen also lived in social isolation between 1973 and his departure to the United States in 1980. The immigration judge (IJ) found that Chen had real fears of persecution. However, the IJ also concluded that the “leniency of the present Government of China to mere religious activity does not permit a finding of well-founded fear” of persecution in the future. Chen appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, arguing his eligibility for asylum based on his experiences during the Cultural Revolution amount to persecution based on his religious beliefs.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Milhollan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.