NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YONGZHOU LI,

 Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

 Respondent.

No. 22-1446

Agency No.

A216-258-918

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW, M. SMITH, and RAYES.

***

Yongzhou Li (“Li”), a citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not 

precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for 

the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-1446

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here 

except as necessary to provide context. Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s 

decision and adds its own reasoning, “we review both the IJ and the BIA’s 

decision.” Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2010). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Li 

failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. To be 

eligible for asylum, a petitioner must present evidence of a nexus between his 

past or feared persecution and his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular group, or political opinion.” Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1281 

(9th Cir. 1998). The agency reasonably concluded that the attackers who beat

Petitioner did not know of or impute to Petitioner any political opinion (the only 

protected category he alleged) and instead attacked him in a private act of 

extortion. See id. (holding that applicants who had allegedly been attacked in an 

extortion attempt had, “at most show[n] they had been the victim[s] of criminal 

activity in Russia”). Li does not present any evidence that “compels a contrary 

conclusion” to the one reached by the BIA. See id. Therefore, substantial 

evidence supports the BIA’s denial of both Li’s claims for asylum and 

withholding of removal. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(“[F]ailure to satisfy the lesser standard of proof required to establish eligibility 

for asylum necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate eligibility for 

withholding of deportation as well.”).
3 22-1446

2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Li 

did not establish eligibility for CAT protection. To qualify for CAT protection, 

a noncitizen must show “that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured 

upon removal, and that the torture will be inflicted at the instigation of, or with 

the consent or acquiescence of, the government.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 

940, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). “Torture” is “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman 

treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading 

treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture.” 8 C.F.R. § 

1208.18(a)(2). The record does not compel the conclusion that Li’s treatment in 

China rose to the level of torture. The agency reasonably found that Li lived in 

China and free from harm for months after the attack and that Petitioner’s 

generalized allegations of mistreatment by the Chinese government was not 

objective evidence showing that China acquiesced to torture specifically 

targeted at Li. See Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018)

(denying relief where allegations of mistreatment were not specific to the 

petitioner). And, as the IJ found, Li did not demonstrate that he could not 

relocate to another area of China without being harmed. See Aguilar Fermin v. 

Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir. 2020).

PETITION DENIED.