Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0331-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JIAZENG ZHAO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70795.
    United States Court of Appeals,' Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2015.
    Filed Nov. 20, 2015.
    Thomas John Mayer, Esquire, Law Office of Thomas J. Mayer San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Meadow W. Platt, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
    
      
      The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jiazeng Zhao petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s order denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

1. At oral argument, counsel conceded that the petition may be denied as to Zhao’s alleged resistance to China’s one-child policy.

2. While Zhao alleges that the police beat him because of his political opinion regarding the government’s complicity in an unfair eviction scheme, “the record does not compel us to hold that [Zhao] was attacked on account of’ a statutorily protected ground. Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, 717 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir.2013). Zhao’s argument is plausible, but it is also plausible that the government punished Zhao for overstaying or squatting in a residence from which he had been evicted after receiving compensation. Our standard of review is stringent, and Zhao is entitled to relief only if the record compels the conclusion that his version of the facts is correct. On this record, we defer to the agency’s decision because the record doesn’t compel us to credit Zhao’s argument.

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