## Facts

- Chang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, entered the United States without inspection and was placed in deportation proceedings.
- The immigration judge found him deportable and denied asylum, withholding of deportation, and voluntary departure.
- Chang sought asylum and withholding based on fear arising from China’s population-control program commonly described as a “one couple, one child” policy.
- After the birth of a second child, Chang and his wife were ordered to undergo sterilization procedures.
- Chang asserted fear related to enforcement of the policy, rather than harm tied to a protected characteristic beyond the general operation of the program.
- On appeal, Chang argued that the coercive population-control measures constituted persecution, and he invoked 1988 policy guidelines announced by the Attorney General concerning such claims.

## Issues

1. Whether implementation of China’s population-control policy, including possible involuntary sterilization, is persecution “on account of” a protected ground under INA § 101(a)(42)(A).
2. Whether Chang established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution with the required nexus to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
3. Whether immigration judges and the Board are bound by the Attorney General’s August 5, 1988 policy guidelines addressing coercive population-control claims.

## Decision

- The Board dismissed the appeal as to asylum and withholding of deportation.
- The Board held that China’s population-control policy is not, on its face, persecutive on account of any protected ground, even if involuntary sterilization may occur.
- The Board held that applicants must show the policy’s application to them is persecutive due to selective enforcement or use as punishment on account of a protected ground.
- The Board rejected the view that mere opposition to the policy, without evidence of punishment because of that opposition, establishes persecution based on political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
- The Board held that when harm is attributed to local officials, the applicant ordinarily must show that effective redress from higher authorities is unavailable or reasonably feared to be unavailable.
- The Board held the 1988 Attorney General policy guidelines did not apply to, and did not control, Board or immigration judge decisions.

## Legal Principles

- Asylum and withholding require a showing that past or feared harm is “on account of” one of the protected grounds; severe government measures do not qualify absent the statutory nexus.
- A generally applicable population-control policy is not per se persecution under INA § 101(a)(42)(A), even where coercive procedures may occur.
- Claims tied to population-control enforcement require individualized proof that the applicant was targeted or would be targeted for a protected reason (e.g., selective application against a protected class or punishment for political opinion).
- Opposition to a population-control policy does not, without evidence of punitive targeting because of that opposition, establish persecution based on political opinion or membership in a particular social group defined by such opposition.
- Where alleged persecutory acts are carried out by local officials, the applicant typically must address whether higher-level protection or redress is unavailable.
- Policy guidance from the Attorney General does not bind the Board or immigration judges absent controlling legal authority.

## Conclusion

The Board denied asylum and withholding because enforcement of China’s population-control program was not treated as persecution on a protected ground without specific evidence of selective or punitive application linked to a protected characteristic, and it also held that the Attorney General’s 1988 guidelines did not govern adjudications by immigration judges or the Board.


Matter of Chang, 20 I. & N. Dec. 38 (B.I.A. 1989)