N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KE W EN LIN, AKA Ka

W an Ni, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-73264 Age n c y No. A094-788-812 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

April 9, 2014 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, N.R . SM ITH, a nd M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s.

Ke W e n Lin, a

ka K a W an Ni, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , a p pe a ls the de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de ny ing his a pplic a tion for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst



# FIL E D APR 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a n d we de ny

the pe tition. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t Lin did not suffe

r pa st pe rse c ution on the

ba sis of his politic a l opinion. Lin’ s wife ’ s forc e d ste riliz a tion se rve s a s som e proof tha

t Lin suffe re d pe rse c ution on a c c ount of C hina ’ s c oe rc ive popula tion c ontrol polic y . Se eJ iang v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th C ir. 2010). Howe ve r, the fa c t tha t Lin (1) wa s upse t

with fa m ily pla nning offic ia ls for his wife ’ s forc e d ste riliz ation; (2) pa id a 30,000 R M B fine ; a

nd (3) be c am e angry and atte m pte d to stop fa

m ily pla nning offic ia ls from c onfisc a ting his property , without more , is not e nough to c om pe l a finding of pa st pe rse c ution ba se d on re sista nc e to the popula

tion c ontrol polic y . Se e Matte r of M–F–W – & L–G– , 24 I. & N. De c . 633, 637-38 (B IA 2008). Lin did not suffe r from any m istre at m e nt by the g ove rnm e nt. Furthe r, the re c ord is de void of e v ide nc e , be y ond ha ving a se c ond c hild, tha t Lin re siste d or m a d e any sta te m e nts a ga inst C hina ’ s fam ily pla nning polic ie s. To the c ontra

ry , Lin pa id off m ost of the 30,000 R M B fine . Lin live d a

nd worke d in C hina

without inc ide nt for a lm ost four y e ars a fte r his wife ’ s ste riliz a tion. It wa s not until fa m ily pla nning offic i a ls c am e to ta ke his prope rty that he m a de any

obje c tion. Howe ve r, e ve n the n, he did not obje c t to C h ina ’ s fa m ily pla nning polic ie s. The re fore , at be st, Lin ha s e s ta blishe d “ sim

ple grudging 2c om

plia nc e ” with C hina ’ s polic y , whic h doe s not a m ount to the

re sista nc e re quire d for pa st pe rse c ution. Id . at 638. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Lin fa ile d to e sta blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Although C hine se a uthoritie s have a s ke d a

bout Lin’ s whe re a

bouts, Lin’ s wife and c hildre n c ontinue to livein C hina . Any

fe ar of future pe rse c ution is ba se d on Lin’ s opposition to fa m ily pla nning offic ia ls ta

king his property

ra the r tha

n a ny re siste nc e to C hina ’ s fam ily pla nning polic ie s. Ac c ordingly , substa n tia l e vide nc e supports the c o nc lusion tha

t Lin’ s fe ar of future pe rse c ution ba se d on a prote c te d ground is not obje c t ive ly re a s ona ble . B e c a use Lin fa ile d to sa

tisfy the lowe r sta

nda rd of proof for a sy lum , it ne c e ssa rily follows tha

t he a lso fa ile d to sa

t isfy the m ore stringe nt sta

nda rd for withholding of rem o v a l. Se e Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re l ie f, be c a use Lin fa ile d to e s ta

blish it is m

ore like ly tha n not he will be torture d if he re turns to C hina . S

e e Santos-Le mus v . Muk

a se y , 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th C ir. 2008). W hile t he re is a possibility

tha t Lin c o uld be arre ste d for the a lle ge d a ssa ult

3a ga inst thefam ily pla nning c om

m itte e m e m

be r, suc h an a rre st doe s not riseto the le ve l of torture . C

f. Ville g as v . Muk ase y , 523 F.3d 984, 988-89 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4