Lo Monaco v. Belfiore

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that harm inflicted under China’s coercive family planning policies did not amount to persecution on account of a protected ground
• holding that China’s population control policy is not persecution
• stating that the Attorney General’s “guidelines” are not binding on the Board or Immigration Judges
• adopting the rule that victims of a coercive family planning regime could claim refugee status only if the victims demonstrated that the family- planning policy had been “selectively applied” to them on the basis of a protected ground
• internal quotation marks and number of aliens who may be granted citation omitted
• “To the extent ... that such a policy is solely tied to controlling population, rather than as a guise for acting against people for reasons protected by the Act, we cannot find that persons who do not wish to have the policy applied to them are victims of persecution.... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).