N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ENJUN TONG, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-74015 Age n c y No. A088-290-938 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 M ay

3, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd STEIN, *** Distric t Judge . Pe titione r W e njun Tong, a C hine se c itiz e n, se e ks re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ s (“ B IA” ) fina l orde r of re m ova l a ffirm i ng the im m igration 

# FIL ED MAY20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Sidne y

H. Ste in, Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his re que st for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l , a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). On a p pe a l, Tong argue s tha

t the B IA e rre d in finding tha t Tong wa s not ta

rge te d on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground a nd did not suffer pa st pe rse c ution. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we DENY the pe tition for re v ie w. W e note first tha

t Tong doe s not a

ppe ar to c onte st the B IA’ s de c ision re ga rding his withholding of re m ova l a nd C AT c la im s. B e c a

use Tong fa i le d to ra ise any argum e nt in his opening brie f re ga rding e i the r his withholding of re m ova l c la im or his C AT c la i m , the se c la im s ha ve be e n wa ive d a

nd we do not a ddre ss the m . Se e Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th C ir. 1996) (fa ilure to ra ise an issue in a n ope ning brie f c o nstitute s wa ive r). R e ga rding Tong’ s a sy lum

c l a im , we re vie w le ga l que stions denovo, a nd the B IA’ s fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e . K

hudav e rdy a n v . Holde r , 778 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th C ir. 2015). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c o nc lusion that Tong did not suffe

r pa st pe rse c ution on a c c o unt of a prote c te d ground. First, Tong c a

nnot de m onstra

te a ne xus to a

prote c te d ground, be c a

use he ha s not shown tha

t h e wa s ta

rge te d for a

rre st by C hine se polic e for e xpre ssing a politic a l opinion, ra

the r tha n for le gitim ate la

w e nforc e m e nt purpose s. Polic e c onduc t, e ve n

whe re he avy -hande d, doe s not ne c e ssa rily c onstitute

“ pe rse c ution” if 2the p olic e are e nga ge d in le gitim ate inve stiga

tive or pe a c e -ke e p ing a c tivitie s. Se e , e .g. , Lin v . Holde r , 610 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th C ir. 2010) (finding no pe rse c ution whe re the pe titione r te stifie d tha t C hine se a

uthoritie s sought him be c a use he a ssiste d a Fa l un Gong fugitive

in viola tion of C hine se la

w, a nd whe re the pe titione r

“ did not provide any

e vide nc e tha

t C hine se a

uthoritie s would a c t in suc h a n

‘ e xtre m e ’ wa

y a s to riseto the le ve l of pe rse c ution” ); Donc he v v . Muk ase y , 553 F.3d 1206, 1214–15 (9th C i r. 2009) (finding no pe rse c ution whe re pe t itione r e nc ounte re d polic e “ whe n the y we re inve stiga ting c rim e s or m a inta ining the pe a c e ” and whe re “ any

e sc a lation during the se e nc ounte rs we re c a use d by [the pe titione r’ s] frie nds c ha lle nging polic e a uthority ” ). Tong te stifie d that the prote ste rs “ fought ba c k” whe n the polic e trie d to dispe rse the c rowd, a nd Tong him se lf wa s not a

rre ste d until hephy sic a lly inte ra c te d with a

n offic e r using his prote st sign. Onc e the prote st turne d viole nt, the polic e ha d le gitim ate inve stiga tive and pe a c e -ke e p i ng re a sons for a rre sting a nd inte rrogating those involve d in thefight, inc luding Tong. Tong has not shown tha t the polic e attribute d a

ny pa rtic ula r opinion to him . C

f. Hu v . Holde r , 652 F.3d 1011, 1014, 1017–18 (9th C ir. 2011) (finding ne xus to a prote c te d ground whe re the pe t itione r wa s a rre ste d for pa

rtic i pating in a

prote st a nd a c c use d of ha

ving politic a l opinions a dve rse to the C hine se gove rnm e nt a nd the C om

m unist Pa rty ). 3Eve n a ssum ing tha t Tong c ould e sta

blish a ne xus to a

prote c te d ground, the tre atm e n t he suffe re d doe s not riseto the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Pe rse c ution is a n

“ e x tre m e c onc e pt, ” Gu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th C i r. 2006), a nd

“ doe s not inc lude e ve ry

sort of tre atm e nt our soc ie ty re ga rds a s offe nsive , ” W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1059 (9th C ir. 2009). Tong wa s de ta ine d for a we e k a nd be ate n twic e , but did not susta in se rious injury . Although Tong sought m e dic a l tre atm e nt from

a sm a ll loc a l hospital a fte r he wa s re le a se d from c ustody , he re quire d only m inim a l tre atm e nt: he wa s sim ply give n a

ntibioticm e dic ation a

nd ointm e n ts. Se e

, e .g. , Gu 454 F.3d a

t 1020 (finding no pe

rse c ution whe re pe titione r wa s de ta i ne d a

nd be ate n on one oc c a sion, interrogate d for two hours, did not re quire m e dic a l tre atm e nt, a nd did not suffer a dve rse e m ploy m e nt c onse que nc e s); Prasad v . IN

S , 47 F.3d 336, 339–40 (9th C ir. 1995) (finding no pe rse c ution whe re pe titione r wa s a

rre ste d onc e , hit in the

stom a c h a

n d kic k e d, a

n d inte rrogat e d for six hours a b out his politic a l a lle gia

nc e s). B e c a use Tong fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution, theB IA c orre c tly found that he is not e ntitle d to a

re butta ble pre sum

ption of futurepe rse c ution. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1). W ith re ga rd to Tong’ s fe ar that the polic e will c om e looking for him if he re turns to C hina , substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s

4finding tha

t Tong fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s inte re st in him would be for anything other tha

n le gitim ate la

w e n forc e m e nt purpose s. The pe tition for re vie w is DENIED.

5