有网友问：“我参加家庭教会，被逮捕，拘留了三天，被打了两个耳光，踢了两脚，结果移民局说我受到的伤害够不上迫害。因而拒绝了我的庇护申请。这是怎么回事？什么样的伤害才够得上迫害呢？”
这个问题具有普遍性，许多申请人因为受到的伤害够不上迫害而永远无法得到庇护。所以我发此贴，希望申请人自己分析，自己掌握自己的命运。
申请庇护的重要理由往往是过去遭受了迫害。“迫害”是个法律用词。它有三个因素组成，要符合三个因素才能够格申请庇护。第一个含义是“原因”，即申请人为什么收到伤害。庇护法中提到五个方面的原意：政治观点（一胎化庇护算作政治）丶宗教丶民族丶国际和特殊社会团体。因别的原因受到了伤害是不能申请庇护的。比如强拆，那基本是个经济问题，钱的问题或者叫做补偿的问题。当然在强拆中牵涉到反对贪污，污蔑政府，想企图以此来反对政府，那就成了一个政治问题。第二个是迫害的施加人，必须是政府或政府不愿控制或不能控制的个人或团体。第三个因素是伤害必须严重到一定程度，伤害必须是极端的。打两个耳管踢两脚是够不上迫害的。
移民法没有对什么样的伤害够上迫害给与定义。所以，要明白这个问题，只有从联邦上诉法院的案例来找答案，因为联邦上诉法院的案例是解释法律的。
联邦上诉法院对“迫害”有以下定义：
“迫害包括对生命的威胁丶禁闭丶折磨。”
“殴打和以死相威胁构成迫害。”
“严重的经济剥夺也可能构成迫害。”
“对家庭成员的伤害可能构成对申请人的迫害。”
“强迫加入组织丶电击，注射药物以便使受害人放弃同性恋构成迫害。”
“因五种原因的绑架丶敲诈勒索丶强奸等构成迫害。”
“长期拘留和威胁监禁构成迫害。”
“驱逐出境丶不准入境丶没收财产，可能是侵犯了人的基本权利，够得上迫害。”
“政府不能或不愿控制的家庭暴力可能构成迫害。”
“缺乏正常的审判或没有通过正常的法律程序而施加的惩罚可能构成迫害。”
“对罪犯的处罚如果过严丶过于随意，而且与五种原因有些关系，可能构成迫害。”
“仅仅骚扰或歧视够不上迫害。”
“拒绝服兵役受到的惩罚一般不算迫害。”
“一般说，按比较公正的法律程序对申请人的合法处罚不算迫害。”
“因种族丶宗教丶国籍丶政治观点或特殊社会团体成员而受到生命或自由的威胁可以认为是迫害。”
“很多行为（如各种歧视）本身够不上迫害，但与其它因素（如原国家非常不安全）‘加起来’可能够得上迫害。”
“迫害并不包括我们社会认为的一切不公丶不平丶不合法丶不合宪法的待遇。也不包括国家混乱和无政府状态所造成的伤害。”
当然，单单读这些条文，一般人还是难以理解什么样的伤害够不上迫害。我想从以下的中国人的案例中网友们可以得到一些启发。最近几年联邦上诉法院因受到的伤害够不上迫害拒绝了五百多个中国人的庇护上诉案子。因时间关系，我只能在此举出几个例子。从这些例子中网友可能得到一些启发。
第一上诉法院在2014年3月14日拒绝陈姓申请人的案子是这样说的：
翻译：移民山故事委员会认为，即便陈是可信的，她所描写的事件没有到达迫害的程度。我们曾经说过，一个外国人经历的事情要达到迫害必须不仅仅是‘一般的骚扰丶不公正待遇或伤害”。
这里，陈作证说在三天的拘留中的两次审讯时，她被用书架子打头。其证词表明，她受到的伤害很轻，不需要治疗。
英文如下：
The BIA found that even if Chen were deemed credible, the events she testified to did not rise to the level of persecution. We have held that a noncitizen must have experienced something more than “ordinary harassment, mistreatment, or suffering” to demonstrate persecution. Lopez de Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213, 217 (1st Cir.2007). “The severity, duration, and frequency of physical abuse are factors relevant to this determination, as is whether harm is systematic rather than reflective of a series of isolated incidents.” Barsoum v. Holder, 617 F.3d 73, 79 (1st Cir.2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Chen testified to the slapping of her head and face with binders at two interrogation sessions that took place during Chen's three-day detention. Her testimony indicated that the injuries suffered from this incident were minor and did not require professional medical treatment.
2013年9月22日第三上诉法院在一个陈姓案子中说：
“被人口控制政策迫害过的人的配偶不能自动获得庇护。但是如果这个配偶因为“其它的抗拒”人口控制政策而受到了迫害或有了充分理由的恐惧【未来的迫害】也是可以合格申请庇护的。陈说他被迫躲藏丶被迫离开中国，这够不上迫害。（伤害性的对待和骚扰，虽然是可悲的，可能够不上迫害。迫害是指极端的行为包括对生命的威胁，监禁丶折磨以及构成对生命或自由的严重的经济制裁。)
Spouses of those persecuted by coercive population control policies are not automatically eligible for asylum. Lin－Zheng v. Att'y Gen., 557 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir.2009) (en banc). A spouse remains eligible *142 for relief if he qualifies as a refugee based on his own persecution or well-founded fear of persecution for “other resistance” to a coercive population control program. Id. Chen's allegations that he was forced to hide and flee the country do not amount to persecution. SeeJarbough v. Att'y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 191 (3d Cir.2007) (“Abusive treatment and harassment, while always deplorable, may not rise to the level of persecution.”);Fatin v. I.N.S., 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 (3d Cir.1993) (persecution denotes extreme conduct, including “threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom.”)
第一上诉法院在2013你niian7yue22日林姓案子中说：
“放置避孕环本身不能支持迫害的说法。‘要使伤害到达迫害的程度，放环必须牵涉到恶劣的情况。’， 法官说放置避孕环不一定达到一胎化中的迫害。低于堕胎或结扎的强制性避孕措施，例如带环丶必须的妇科检查，本身是够不上迫害的。
Insertion of an IUD does not alone support a claim of persecution. “[T]o rise to the level of harm necessary to constitute ‘persecution,’ the insertion of an IUD must involve aggravating circumstances.” In re M－F－W & L－G－, 24 I. & N. Dec. 633, 642 (BIA 2008); see also He Chen v. Holder, 457 Fed.Appx. 1, 2 (1st Cir.2012)(endorsing IJ's conclusion that IUD insertion “ ‘is not necessarily a procedure designed to amount to persecution on account of the Chinese family planning policy’ ”); Huang v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 620 F.3d 372, 380 n. 5 (3d Cir.2010)(“Mandatory birth-control measures short of abortion or sterilization, such as insertion of an IUD or required gynecological screenings, do not, on their own, riseto the level of persecution ....”); Xia Fan Huang v. Holder, 591 F.3d 124, 130 (2d Cir.2010) (concluding that “the BIA's interpretation that a forced IUD insertion is not a per se ground for granting asylum is entitled to deference”).
第三上诉法院在2012年12月三日的周姓案子中说：
周争辩说他被计生官员打耳光，威胁逮捕他。移民上诉委员会说周在上诉没有对此词提出异议。周即便提出了，那些行为也够不上迫害。（警察用警棍打没有造成需治疗的伤害够不上迫害。
Zhou argues that he was slapped by a birth control official and threatened with arrest. The BIA determined that Zhou did not argue past persecution in his appeal. Zhou does not challenge that determination. Even if Zhou had exhausted the argument, those acts do not rise to the level of persecution. See Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221, 235 (3d Cir.2004) (beating with sticks by police that produced no injuries needing medical treatment not persecution).
第三上诉法院2011年3月25 在倪姓案子中说：
“移民上诉委员会的结论没有什么错误：倪的父母被逮捕但倪没有受到迫害。倪描述的其它行为：对他家庭的威胁丶警察到他家里，把十字架从他家拿走以及倪受到的警告等，够不上迫害。移民上诉委员会的这一决定也没有错。”
The Board therefore committed no error in concluding that Ni was not persecuted when his parents were arrested. Likewise, the Board did not err in concluding that the other acts that Ni describes—the threats to his family, the visit by officials to his house, the removal of a cross from his home, and the warnings Ni himself received—did not rise to the level *1019 of persecution, at least on the generality-heavy record before it. After all, Ni himself was never arrested, and the acts against him are better characterized as harassment.

第三上诉法院2011年2月17日拒绝了一个上诉案子。事情是这样的：
沈女士2002年就参加了家庭教会。2004年六月，家庭教会的三十多人被逮捕，带到公安局，被审讯，关了一夜。2004年10月又一次被逮捕，这次沈被关了7天。释放后被解雇。出庭时沈提供了证人，证明她在美国参加教会。她还提供了在中国的先生和一个朋友的信，作为旁证，证明发生在她身上的事。法官认为她受到的伤害够不上迫害。
联邦上诉法院同意这一决定， 说“While we do not condone the type of mistreatment that Shen described, substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that it was not so extreme as to amount to persecution. See Kibinda v. Att'y Gen., 477 F.3d 113, 119-20 (3d Cir.2007) (holding that an alien did not meet his burden of showing past persecution where he was detained for five days and injured when he was hit in the face with an heavy object and his injury required stitches). We further agree that the loss of her job failed to demonstrate “economic restrictions so severe that they constitute a threat to life or freedom.” Fatin, 12 F.3d at 1240” 翻译：虽然我们并不宽恕沈所描述不公正待遇，但是充分的证据证明移民上诉委员会的结论是正确的，这种不公正待遇没有严重到够上迫害的程度。见案例，，，（那个案例说，申请人被拘留了五天，被一重物打在脸上，脸受伤，逢了几针。申请人没有能够证明过去受到了迫害。）她失去工作并没有表明经济上的限制严重到威胁到生命或自由的程度。

第九上诉法院（管洛杉矶丶旧金山等地区）对这伤害到什么程度够上迫害的问题最宽松。但是该院在2006年拒绝了一个顾姓案子，说顾受到的伤害够不上迫害。这一案例成为第九法院辖区的法官以受到的伤害够不上迫害为由拒绝庇护的根据。
在顾案 （Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2006), 申请人因参加家庭教会被逮捕，拘留了三天，被审讯2个小时，审讯中警察用警棍敲他的背十次，有红肿，但不需要治疗。在这一案子中第九法院采取了通盘考虑的方式，认为顾受到的伤害够不上迫害。法院说：
“我们在普拉撒德一案有着不同的结论。普被带到派出所，扣留起来。肚子上遭到了打击，从后面被踢。他被拘留了4-6 个小时。遭到了有关他政治方面的审讯。他没有需要去看医生，也没有指责他刑事犯罪。他认为释放后除非他停止政治活动，否则他会再次被逮捕，被殴打。后来政府也没有找他的麻烦。材料也没有表明政府会对他继续感兴趣。移民上诉委员会认为普受到的伤害够不上迫害。我们当时认为‘虽然一个合理的法官可以认为普受到的伤害够得上迫害，但事实不能促使我们一定要这样看。’政府对普的行为没有那么过分以至于使这种行为构成迫害。
顾的遭遇更像普。像普一样，他只有一次被逮捕丶被殴打。顾的审讯只有两小时。他没有需要治疗。他工作上也没有受到影响。
记录中也没有表明顾客观上不能参加家庭教会了。虽然顾作证说释放后他‘不敢’参加家庭教会了，但他也说过当局并没有阻止他参加家庭教会。这些稍有矛盾的证词可能说明他主观上不愿参加家庭教会，记录没有表明他不能参加。确实，记录中没有表明顾不被允许见其他的教友和他们讨论宗教，也没有表明他不能在他家以外的地方祷告和崇拜。记录中只表明他不得再次散布邪教材料，但没有表明政府限制他信教。
根据这些事实，我们的结论是，证据并不能促使我们否定移民上诉委员会的说法，顾没有表明他过去受到了迫害。
We arrived at a different conclusion in Prasad. Prasad was taken to a police station, placed in jail, where he was hit in the stomach and kicked from behind. 47 F.3d at 339. Prasad was detained for four to six hours and interrogated about his political allegiances. Prasad did not require any medical treatment and was not charged with any crime. Id. Once he was released, Prasad assumed that unless he suppressed his political activities, he would again be arrested and beaten. The government, however, did not further harass Prasad, nor did the evidence indicate that it had any continuing interest in Prasad. Id. The Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that the conduct did not rise to the level of persecution, and we held that “[w]e are not permitted to substitute our view of the matter for that of the Board.” Id. at 340 (citation omitted). We held that “[a]lthough a reasonable factfinder could have found this incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.” Id. (second emphasis added). The government's conduct in Prasad was not “so overwhelming so as to necessarily constitute persecution.” 47 F.3d at 339.
...
[10] The abuse that Gu encountered most closely mirrors the circumstances discussed in Prasad. Like Prasad, Gu was detained and beaten on only one occasion, Gu's interrogation lasted only two hours, Gu did not require medical treatment and Gu did not have any adverse employment consequences.
[11] The record also does not demonstrate that Gu was objectively unable to attend his household church.FN2 Although Gu testified that he “did not dare” attend his household church after his arrest, he also testified that the authorities did not prevent him from attending the household church. While this somewhat conflicting testimony may demonstrate that he was subjectively unwilling to attend the household*1021 church after his arrest, the record does not demonstrate that he was unable to do so. Indeed, there is no suggestion in the record that Gu was disallowed from meeting with and discussing his religion with others or disallowed from praying or worshiping outside his home. Other than ongoing prohibition on distribution of contraband religious tracts, there is no evidence in the record regarding any state-imposed limitation on his right to practice his religion.
On these facts, we conclude that the evidence does not compel a result contrary to the BIA's finding that Gu fails to demonstrate past persecution.

解释详细，推荐阅读