The political asylum application of Chinese citizen Guan Heng was approved by an immigration judge on Wednesday (28th). His defense lawyer, Chen Chuangchuang, said in an interview after the hearing that the significance of this case lies in the fact that Guan Heng did not apply for asylum due to direct persecution in China, but rather because he exposed highly sensitive human rights issues denied by the Chinese Communist government, thereby facing the real risk of retaliation upon his return.
Chen Chuangchuang pointed out that, based on the strict standards of U.S. asylum law, Guan Heng had not been arrested, beaten, or threatened during his time in China. However, the key to the case was that Guan Heng secretly filmed and publicly released footage of detention facilities in Xinjiang, touching on a sensitive issue fiercely denied by the Chinese government, constituting a highly political act.
“He did not film these videos with the intention of seeking asylum, but rather to show the world the truth,” said Chen Chuangchuang. Guan Heng gradually realized during the filming process that once the videos were made public in China, not only would his own safety be threatened, but the footage could also be swiftly deleted and wiped from records. Therefore, he chose to leave China and publish the related content overseas.
Chen Chuangchuang described the Xinjiang issue as the most special and crucial part of the case. “There is hardly anyone else who has done such filming. Foreign journalists or other individuals cannot freely enter relevant locations for evidence gathering, unless it is under the official arrangement and surveillance of the Chinese Communist Party, demonstrating it in a prison cell for you to film,” he said. Therefore, the video evidence provided by Guan Heng holds a high level of uniqueness and public value.
In court, the judge took a long time to read the ruling and determined Guan Heng to be a “credible witness,” as his statements and materials were consistent and detailed. Guan expressed concern that he would face retaliation if deported because the Chinese Communist Party had inquired about his whereabouts and past actions to his family.
Chen Chuangchuang revealed that besides media and congressional attention, the U.S. State Department had also provided written opinions on China’s situation and related human rights backgrounds, playing a crucial role in the judge’s understanding of the case.
Despite the ruling outcome, Guan Heng was not immediately released. According to the procedure, the Department of Homeland Security reserves the right to appeal within 30 days. Chen Chuangchuang stated that theoretically, the immigration department could release him at any time or choose to make a decision after the appeal period ends. If the government opts to appeal, the defense will consider filing a habeas corpus petition with the federal court to seek Guan Heng’s release on bail.
Although the prosecution stated they reserved the right to appeal, Chen Chuangchuang believed the possibility of an appeal was not high. “The government’s current enforcement focus is on illegal immigrants with criminal records or posing threats to public safety. Apart from lacking valid documentation upon entry, Guan Heng has no other issues. I don’t think the government needs to continue entangling in such a highly scrutinized case.”
In the context of increasingly strict asylum reviews in the United States in recent years, this ruling is also seen as a rare success case. Chen Chuangchuang stated that the Guan Heng case conveys an important message to the outside world: even without experiencing direct persecution in their home country, as long as applicants have engaged in substantive actions in publicly disclosing serious human rights issues and expressing political stances, and thus face the risk of retaliation upon return, they may still be eligible for asylum.
“If a case of this caliber cannot pass, many people will completely lose confidence in the asylum system,” he said. However, he also emphasized that Guan Heng’s experience is highly unique and not an easily replicable example.
Regarding Guan Heng’s performance on that day, Chen Chuangchuang described him as “calm and composed.” He stated that Guan Heng’s statements in court were clear, stable, and in line with his expectations beforehand. “This result, for many who are disappointed with political asylum, can bring some confidence.”