Case ID: f-appx_302/html/0646-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XIAO YAN LIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72215.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
    
      Xiao Yan Lin, Cazenovia, NY, pro se.
    Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, Annette J. Clark, Esquire, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xiao Yan Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Lin did not meet her burden of establishing eligibility for relief because she failed to demonstrate the required nexus to a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)®, 1231(b)(3)(A). Lin’s father’s dispute with a local government official was based on a personal debt. The agency therefore properly denied Lin’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1051-52 (excluding purely personal retribution from the ambit of protection).

We grant the Attorney General’s motion to vacate the court’s January 30, 2008 order to supplement the administrative record.

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