N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT YAN NA C HEN, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-70570 Age n c y No. A099-583-459 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 Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 3, 2013 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : TALLM AN a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M U RPHY, Distric t Judge . ** Yan Na C he n, a nat ive and c itiz e n of C hina , pe t itions for re v ie w of a n orde r of re m ova l a ffirm e d by

the B o a rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (" B IA" ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition. C he n's initial a

rgum e n t tha

t the B IA e rre d by

not c onside ring the " c h ange d



# FIL ED JAN 03 2014 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose p h M urphy , III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.c irc um s ta

nc e s " provision of 8 U.S.C . § 1158 in de c i ding whe t he r he r a sy l um a pplic a tion wa s tim e ly is una v a iling. The B IA a s sum e d C he n's a pplic ation wa s tim e ly . M ore ove r, the re c o rd shows tha t the B IA did not make a finding re ga rding

" c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s" for us to re vie w. An a lie n m ay

e sta blish a sy lum

e ligibility

by showing a we l l-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ut ion. Mamouzian v . Ashc roft , 390 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie wfa c tua l findings for " substa ntia l e vide nc e " and will uphold the B IA unle ss " any

re a sona ble a djudic a tor would bec om pe lle d to c onc lude to the c ontra ry ." S u Hw a Shev . Holde r , 629 F.3d 958, 961 (9th C ir. 2010). Afte r e xam ining there c ord, we c o nc lude the e vide nc e doe s not c o m pe l the c onc lusion tha

t C h e n wa s e ligiblefor a s y lum . M ost of C he n's doc um e n ta ry e vide nc e is too ge ne ra l to show she fa c e d a we ll-founde d fe a

r of pe rse c ution, or is c um ulat ive of olde r, pre viously disc ounte d e vide nc e . C h e n 's spe c ific a lle gat ion tha t a ne i ghbor wa s forc ibly

ste riliz e d in 2006, e ve n if true , doe s not c onstitute a patte rn or pra c tic e tha

t supports a

we ll-founde d fe ar. Se e ge ne rally Arriaga-Barrie

ntos v . U.S.I.N

.S. , 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th C ir. 1991) (e vide nc e of viole nc e m

u st support " a

patte rn of pe rse c ution c l ose ly tie d to the pe titione r." ). And, C he n's a lle gations tha t he r m othe r a

nd m othe r-in-la

w we re forc i bly

ste riliz e d in the 1980s a

re sim ila rly insuffic ie nt. Se e Zhang v . Gonzale s , 408 F.3d 1239, 1246 2(9th C ir. 2005)(" [A] c hild of a pa re nt who wa s forc i bly

ste riliz e d [is not] a utom a t ic a lly

e ligiblefor a sy lum [.] " ). The re st of C he n's e vide nc e is not suffic i e ntly

pa rtic ula riz e d to show she

ha s a we ll-founde d fe ar of future ste riliz a tion. C

f. Yan Rong Zhao v . Holde r , 728 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe t itione r pre s e nte d

e v ide nc e she would pe rsona lly fa c e forc e d ste riliz ation). In light of the

U.S. De p artm e nt of Sta

te 's M ay 2007 " Profile of Asy lum C la im s and C ountry C onditions for C hina " and othe r re c ords, the B IA ha d substa ntia l e v ide nc e to support its de c ision e ve n a s sum ing C he n's c hildre n would bere giste re d a s C hine se N a tiona ls. Se e ge ne rally Yan Rong Zhao , 728 F.3d a t 1150 (Substa

ntia l e vide nc e inc lude d the " [2007] State De p artm e nt re port" ). B e c a use C h e n fa ile d to e sta

blish e l igibility

for a sy lum , C he n’ s a

pplic ation for withholding of rem ova l m ust be de nie d

a s we ll.. Singh-K

aur v . I.N .S. , 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th C ir. 1999). PETITION DENIED.

3