membership in a protected group” is only available in “some extreme cases.” Rasiah v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted). The standard for proving a “pattern or practice” of persecution “is demanding and in substance requires a showing of regular and widespread persecution creating a reasonable likelihood of persecution of all persons in the group.” Id. at 5. Here, the only evidence submitted regarding a pattern or practice of persecution, independent of Ye’s discredited testimony regarding past persecution, was the 2012 State Department report on religious freedom in China. The report, which indicates that certain Christians can avoid persecution in certain areas under certain circumstances, is not enough. See Chen Qin v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 40, 45 (1st Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Ye’s failure to tie the report to
holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible holding that country reports describing sporadic persecution of unauthorized christian activities did not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution in china holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals holding that state department report was not enough to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of christians in china