Ninth Circuit denies petition from a Chinese mother and her adult children seeking asylum, finding…
Xuena Gong v. Todd Blanche
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
Ninth Circuit denies petition from a Chinese mother and her adult children seeking asylum, finding their experiences with China's family-planning officials did not rise to the level of persecution.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying asylum and withholding of removal to Xuena Gong and her two adult children, who are Chinese nationals. The court found that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Gong's experiences, including being slapped and briefly detained by family-planning officials, were disturbing but not severe enough to constitute persecution. The court also found she failed to show a well-founded fear that she would face forced sterilization or other serious harm if returned to China.
Who it affects
- This ruling directly affects Xuena Gong
- Her two adult children
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 20, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 20, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 20, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Xuena Gong and her adult son and daughter, all Chinese nationals, applied for asylum in the United States based on their experiences with China's coercive family-planning policies. An Immigration Judge denied the application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed their appeal. They then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review. The central legal question was whether Gong's past experiences and fear of future harm met the legal standard for asylum or withholding of removal. To qualify for asylum, a person must show they have been persecuted, or have a well-founded fear of future persecution, based on one of several protected grounds, including resistance to a coercive population control program. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that Gong had not experienced past persecution. While acknowledging her experiences were disturbing, the court found they were not severe enough to compel a finding of persecution under existing legal standards. The court also rejected Gong's argument that the BIA had ignored her testimony about being slapped and briefly detained, noting the BIA explicitly cited relevant parts of the record and stated it considered all evidence cumulatively. On the question of future persecution, the court agreed with the BIA that Gong had not shown she would be in violation of family-planning policies if returned to China, nor that she would face forced sterilization rather than temporary forms of birth control. Because she could not meet the lower standard required for asylum, the court concluded she also could not meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal. The court denied her petition. No dissent is noted in the opinion. The court also noted that Gong's claim under the Convention Against Torture was not considered because it had not been properly raised before the BIA and was therefore forfeited. This opinion is marked not for publication and is not precedent under Ninth Circuit rules, meaning it does not establish new binding legal standards.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XUENA GONG; JIAYING SONG; JIAHAO No. 21-70105 SONG, Agency Nos. A206-854-818 Petitioners, A206-854-819 A206-854-820 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 23, 2026 Honolulu, Hawaii Before: N.R. SMITH, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Xuena Gong and her adult son and daughter, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal of a decision from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Gong’s application for asylum1 and withholding of removal.2 “Our review is limited to the BIA’s decision except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion.” De Souza Silva v. Bondi, 139 F.4th 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2025). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s past persecution determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42) (the term “refugee” may encompass an individual “who has been persecuted for failure or refusal [to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization] or for other resistance to a coercive population control program”); Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 607 U.S. 537, 545 (2026). The BIA concluded that the incidents Gong and her immediate family experienced do not constitute past persecution. “Although [Gong’s] experiences are disturbing and regrettable, they do not evince actions so severe as to compel a finding of past persecution.” Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1063–64 (9th Cir. 2021). Contrary to Gong’s arguments, there is no evidence that, in coming to its past persecution determination, the BIA failed to consider her testimony that she was slapped and briefly detained by family-planning officials. Rather, the BIA cited 1 Gong’s adult children are derivative asylum applicants. 2 Gong did not challenge before the BIA or this court the IJ’s determination that she withdrew her CAT claim. Accordingly, Gong’s CAT claim is unexhausted and forfeited. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 pertinent portions of the record and stated that it considered all of Gong’s evidence cumulatively, demonstrating for us that the BIA did not “ignore” Gong’s arguments and that it “fully reviewed the evidence.” Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Gong did not establish an objectively well-founded fear of future persecution. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1065–66. As the BIA determined, Gong has not established that she would be in violation of family planning policies, or that she would be subjected to forced sterilization as opposed to nonpermanent forms of birth control, if returned to China. Gong’s testimony and the country conditions evidence do not compel a contrary conclusion. See id. (record did not compel finding of future persecution where there was little evidence that alleged persecutors had “continuing interest” in petitioner). Because Gong has not met the lesser burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, she cannot meet the more stringent burden required for withholding of removal. See id. at 1066. PETITION DENIED. 3
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.