T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T P E NG L I U, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 70421 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 665- 996 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y13, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: H U G , S K O P IL , an dB E E Z E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e ng L i u pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of

ade c i s i on bythe B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) a f f i rm i ng the de ni a l of

L i u’ s appl i c a t i ons f

or a s y l um , w i thhol di ng of

r e m ova l a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe U ni t e d N a t i ons C o n v e n tio n A g a in s t T o rtu r e ( “C A T ” ) . L iuh a s a ls o a s k e db o th th e B I A a n dth is 

# FI LED DE C 01 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

c o u rt to r e m a n dh is c a s e s o th a t h e c a n ap p lyf o ra d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s b a s e do n h is 2 0 0 5 m a rr ia g e to aU .S . c itiz e n . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e de nythe pe t i t i on. Th e f a c t s o f th i s c a s e a r e k n o w n t o th e p a rt i e s . W e d o n o tr e p e a tth e m. W e r evi ew the B IA ’ s f

ac tual fi nd i ng s f

or subst ant i alevi dence and i t s l egal c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o . See B enyam i n v. H older , 5 7 9 F .3 d9 7 0 , 9 7 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . T o q u a lif yf o ra s y lu m , L iu m u s t s h o w th a t h e “is u n ab le o ru n w illin g to r e turn t o” C hi na“ be c aus e of pe r s e c ut i on oraw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c ountof

r a c e , r e l i gi on, na t i ona l i ty , m e m be r s hi p i n apa rt i c ul a rs oc i a l gr oup, or po l i t i ca l op i ni on . ” See 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A ) ; 1 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . “T o b e w e llf o u n d e d , a n a s y lu m ap p lic a n t’s f e a ro f p e r s e c u tio n m u s t b e b o th s ub je c tiv e ly genu i ne and o bj ec t i vel y r ea sonabl e. ” A hm ed v. Keisler , 5 0 4 F .3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 9 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e B I A ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t L iu h a s f a ile dto e s t abl i s h aw e l l - f

ounde d f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on. L i u’ s f

a l s e s t a t e m e nt s t o the a s y l um offi ce r und eroath and hi s s ub m i ss i on of fa l se do cum ent s t o the i m m i grat i on court u n d e rm in e th e c r e d ib ilityo f h is a s y lu m c la im . See M art i nez v . H

older , 557 F . 3d 10 59 , 10 65 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( concl ud i ng thatan appl i cant ’ s f al se st at em ent s t o an a s y lu m o f

f ic e ru n d e ro a th s up p o rte da n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ilityf in d in g ) ; D es ta v.3

A s h c r o ft , 3 6 5 F . 3 d7 4 1 , 7 4 5 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (co n cl u d i n g th atsub m i ssi o n o f fal se d o cu m en t s th atw en tt o th e h earto f th e p et i t i o n er’ s cl ai m sup p o rt edan ad v erse cr edi bi l i ty f

i nd i ng ). If

an appl i cantfa i l s “ t o p re se ntcand i d, cr edi bl e and si ncer e t e s t i m onyde m ons tr a t i ng age nui ne f e a rof pe r s e c ut i on, ” he c a nnot“ s a t i s f ythe s ub je c tiv e c o m p o n e n t o f

th e w e ll- f

o u n d e df e a rs tan d a r d ” f

o ra s y lu m . Me

jia - P a iz v . I NS , 1 1 1 F .3 d7 2 0 , 7 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . F urther, even i f L i u’ s f

ear of r el i gi ou s per se cut i on i s genui ne, subst ant i al e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e B I A ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t th is f e a ris n o t o b

je c tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . L i u h as no tbeen pers ec ut ed i n the past , and the evi dence of possi bl e f uture p e r s e c u tio n is to o g e n e r a l an dto o s p e c u la tiv e . See L olon g v. G on zales , 484 F . 3d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( r e j e c t i n g a“ g e n e r a l , u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e dc l a i m” o f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n ) ; se e al so W akkaryv. H

older , 5 5 8 F .3 d1 0 4 9 , 1 0 6 0 - 6 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2009) ( di s c us s i ng e xa m pl e s of s y s t e m a t i c pe r s e c ut i on tha tha ve gi ve n r i s e t o a p a tte rn o rp r a c tic e c la im in p r io rc a s e s a n dc o n c lu d in g th a t th e p e titio n e rf a ile dto es t abl i sh a patt ern o r pra ct i ce of pers ec ut i on of C hi nese C hri st i ans i n Ind on es i a) . T h e s a m e r e a s o n in g s up p o rts th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f w ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o

ft , 348 F . 3d 1153, 1156 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( not i ng tha tthe s tan d a r df

o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l is h ig h e rth a n th e s tan d a r df o ra s y lu m ) . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e a l s o s upport s the de ni a l of L i u’ s C A T c l a i m be c aus e the4

generalevi dence L i u p re se nt ed do es no tcom pel a f i nd i ng thatthere i s a“ grea t er th a n f if typ e r c e n t” c h a n c e th a t L iu w ill b e to rtu r e dif h e r e tu rn s to C h in a . See H a m o u i v . A s h c r o

ft , 38 9 F . 3d 82 1, 82 7 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). L i u a s ks us t o r e m a nd t o the B I A s o tha the c a n s e e k t o a dj us thi s s t a tus ba s e d on hi s m a rr i a ge t o aU ni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n. H e a l s o a s ke d the B I A t o r e m a nd f o rth e s a m e r e a s o n . He d i dn o t , h o we v e r , f i l e am o t i o n t o r e o p e n o rr e m a n d . He di d nots ubm i t“ the appr opr i a t e appl i c a t i on f orr e l i e f a nd a l l s upport i ng do cum ent at i on . ” See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ; se e al so R om er o-R uiz v . Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 1057, 1063 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( not i ng the “ f orm a l r e qui r e m e nt s of

am ot i on t o r e m a nd a nd am ot i on t o r e ope n a r e the s a m e ” a nd s uc h m ot i ons m us tbe

“ a c c om pa ni e d bythe pr ope rappl i c a t i on f orr e l i e f a nd a l l s upport i ng do cum ent at i on ”) . G i ven these ci rc um st ance s, w e dec l i ne L i u’ s r equestfor a r e m a nd. PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .