## Facts

- Guo Chun Di, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, was married and had one child.
- Local officials implementing a coercive population-control policy ordered that either Di or his wife undergo sterilization and threatened forced abortion if they had another child.
- Di opposed the policy, feared arrest, imprisonment, and involuntary sterilization, and fled his village to a distant city.
- After he fled, officials searched for him and partially destroyed his house.
- Di left China aboard the *Golden Venture*, was apprehended upon arrival in the United States, and was placed in exclusion proceedings for lack of valid entry documents.
- Di applied for asylum; the Immigration Judge found his testimony credible but denied relief based on a BIA precedent treating coercive family-planning enforcement as not persecution on account of political opinion.
- The BIA affirmed, rejecting arguments that executive or regulatory actions had displaced the BIA precedent.
- Di petitioned for habeas corpus in federal district court to challenge the asylum denial.

## Issues

1. Whether persecution, or a well-founded fear of persecution, for opposing and refusing to comply with coercive population-control measures (including involuntary sterilization and forced abortion) constitutes persecution “on account of” political opinion under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
2. Whether the BIA’s interpretation excluding such claims from “political opinion” persecution is entitled to judicial deference in light of inconsistent executive-branch positions on this category of asylum claims.
3. Whether executive statements or regulations purportedly favoring asylum in such cases altered the governing interpretation applied by immigration adjudicators.

## Decision

- The district court granted habeas relief and held Di satisfied the statutory definition of “refugee.”
- The court ruled that opposition to and refusal to comply with a coercive population-control policy may constitute a political opinion for purposes of asylum eligibility.
- The court declined to defer to the BIA’s restrictive interpretation because the relevant administrative record reflected conflicting and shifting executive-branch positions.
- Relying on the credited testimony and record evidence, the court found Di’s fear of arrest, imprisonment, and involuntary sterilization well-founded and tied to his political opposition to the policy.

## Legal Principles

- Persecution (or a well-founded fear of persecution) based on opposition to and refusal to comply with coercive population-control measures can be persecution “on account of” political opinion under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
- Forced sterilization, threatened forced abortion, and related coercive enforcement actions may constitute persecution rather than ordinary regulatory penalties.
- Judicial deference to an agency’s statutory interpretation may be withheld where the executive branch has not maintained a coherent, consistent position and the administrative record is materially inconsistent.
- When deference is unwarranted, a court may independently construe the refugee definition and apply it to the established facts.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Di’s credible, well-founded fear of severe coercive measures for resisting China’s population-control policy fell within the INA’s protection for persecution on account of political opinion, and it rejected deference to a contrary BIA interpretation due to inconsistent administrative positions.


Di v. Carroll, 842 F. Supp. 858 (E.D. Va. 1994)