Case ID: f-appx_227/html/0676-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAO MING LIN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71283.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007.
    Filed April 18, 2007.
    Jisheng Li, Esq., Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, N. Christopher Hardee, United States Dept, of Justice, Antitrust Division, Rebecca A. Perlmutter, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lao Ming Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Lin failed to establish past persecution because the events which took place regarding the demolition of Lin’s home to build a road did not constitute persecution and were unrelated to an enumerated ground. See Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir.2001).

Because Lin did not establish that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id.

Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Lin did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to China. See Mamouzian v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1129, 1139 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.