N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JIAN R . C HEN,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71387 Age n c y No. A203-599-196
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 Fe brua

ry 8, 2022 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : B YB EE, B EA, a n d C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Jia

n R ong C h e n se e ks re vie w of the de nia l of he r a pplic ation for withholding of rem o v a l, a sy lum , a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (C AT). C he n ba se s he r c la im s on tre atm e nt tha t she and he r fam ily

fa c e d 

# FIL ED
FEB 18 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).at the ha

nds of theloc a l C hine se gove rnm e nt a fte r the y re siste d e fforts to ta

ke the ir fam ily hom e unde r e m ine nt dom a in. She a lso a lle ge s pe rse c ution be c a use of he r C atholic re ligious a ffilia

tion. 1 The Im

m igration Judge(IJ) and B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B IA) de nie d the pe tition, c iting a la c k of ne xus for the withholding c l a im , fa ilure to qua lify unde r C A T, a nd prohibition of a sy lum unde r the n ow-inva l i d tra

nsit ba r of 84 Fe d. R e g. 33,829 (July 16, 2019). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(1) an d de ny the pe tition. Whe re the B IA a ffirm s the IJ c iting its de c ision in Matte r of Burbano , 20 I. & N. De c . 872, 874 (B .I.A. 1994), a nd a dding its own a

na ly sis, this c ourt
re vie ws the fa c tua l findings of the IJ a nd B IA for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . S

e e Bondare nk

o v . Holde r , 733 F.3d 899, 906 (9th C ir. 2013); Me lk onian v . Ashc roft , 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th C ir. 2003). A pe titione r c onte nding tha t the B IA’ s findings a re e rrone ous m

ust e sta blish tha t the e vide nc e not only

supports tha

t
c onc lusion, but c om

pe ls it. Se eBringas-Rodrigue z v . Se ssions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba n c ) (“ A finding by

the IJ is not supporte d by substa ntia l

1 Although C h e n atte m

pts to ra ise he r a lle ge d

re l igious perse c ution he re , the B IA c orre c tly

de e m e d the c l a im

wa ive d on a

p pe a l, a nd we c annot c onside r c la im s not prope rly

e xha uste d be fore the a ge nc y . Se e Tijani v . Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ W e la c k jurisdic t ion to re vie wle ga l c l a im s not pre se nte d in an a l ie n ’ s a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings be fore the B IA.” (c iting Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004))). 2e vide nc e whe n a ny re a sona ble a djudic ator would bec om p e lle d to c onc lude to the
c ontra ry ba se d on thee vide n c e in there c ord.” (c le a n e d up)). 1. C he n c ha lle nge s the IJ a nd B IA’ s finding of no ne xus be twe e n he r tre atm e nt a

nd he r c la i m e d pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group of “ fam i ly .” 2 She fa ils to de m onstra

te tha t the re c ord c om

pe ls a diffe re nt c onc l usion. To e sta blish ne xus for withholding of rem o v a l, C he n ne e d only show tha t the purporte d prote c te d ground is “ a re a son” for he r pe rse c ution, a “ l e ss de m anding sta

nda rd tha n [the ] ‘ one
c e ntra l re a s on’ ” a s y lum

sta n da rd. Se eBarajas-Romero v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C i r. 2017). Although Che n c onte nds tha t the B IA e rre d in a ffirm ing the finding of no ne xu s, she points to no e vide nc e in there c ord tha

t c om pe ls a c ontra ry
c onc lusion. Rathe r, C he n se e m s to c onte nd tha

t be c a use he r e ntire fam ily

wa s ta rge te d, it ne c e s sa

rily follows tha

t she wa s ta

rge t e d be c a

use of he r fam ilia l
m e m b e rship. Ye t, a

n “ a p plic ant’ s m e m

be rship in a

fam ily -ba se d pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group doe s not ne c e ssa

rily m e an tha n a ny ha rm inflic te d or thre ate n e d

by the pe rse c utor is be c a

u se of, or on a c c ount of, thefam ily m e m be rship.” Se eMatte r of L-E-A- , 27 I. & N. De c . 40, 43 (B .I.A. 2017). Suc h is thec a se he re . First, C he n

2 C he n doe s not c onte st the IJ a nd B IA’ s findings with re spe c t to he r se c ond soc i a l group a

nd a ny c ha lle n ge to the m

is wa ive d. Se e Tijani , 628 F.3d a t 1080 (“ [W ] e ge ne ra lly

will not ta

ke up a rgum e nts not raise d in a

n a lie n’ s ope ning brie f be fore this c ourt.” ). 3only

suffe re d injury

whe n she dire c tly

oppose d the a c tions of thegove rnm e nt offic ia ls. Se c ond, othe r villa ge rs suffe re d the sa m e tre atm e nt whe n the y

oppose d the g ove rnm e nt a c tion. Finally , se ve ra l of C h e n’ s fam ily m e m be rs, inc luding he r husba n d a nd c hildre n, we re ne ve r ta rge te d. Ta

ke n toge the r, the se fa c ts support the IJ a nd B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t the offic ia ls we re not m otiva te d by C h e n’ s fam ilia l
m e m b e rship. In light of the

e ntire re c ord, the a ge nc y ’ s finding of no nexus for withholding is supported by substa ntia l e vide nc e , a

nd this finding is de

te rm inative of the a sy lum

c la im a s we l l. 2. The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t the tra nsit ba r unde r whic h

the a ge nc y de nie d C h e n’ s a s y lum

c la im is no longer good la

w a nd c annot support the

c la im
. Howe ve r, re m and would befutile in light of the ne xus de te rm ination. A la c k of
ne xus unde r withholding’ s m o re ge ne rous “ a re a son” sta n da rd is dispositive

of finding a la c k of ne xus unde r a sy lum ’ s stric te r “ one c e ntra l re a son” sta nda rd. Se e Rie ra-Rie ra v . Ly n c h , 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th C ir. 2016). Thus, a ny re m and would befutile
. Se edeJ e sus Me le nde

z v . Gonzale

s , 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 n.1 (9th C ir. 2007). 3. Unde r C AT, it is the pe titione r’ s burde n to e s ta blish tha t “ i t is m ore like ly tha n not” tha t she will betorture d if she re turns to C h i na , e ithe r by gove rnm e nt offic ia ls or with governm e nt offic ia ls’ a c quie s c e nc e . 8 C .F.R
. 4§ 1208.16(c )(2); Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014).

She m u st show a

“pa rtic ula riz e d thre at” of torture
. Dhital v . Muk a se y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008) (e m pha sis omitte d ) (quoting Lanza v . Ashc roft , 389 F.3d 917, 936 (9th C ir. 2004)). C he n is not e ntitle d to C AT prote c tion if he r
c la im s of possible

torture are spe c ulative
. Se e , e .g. , Blandino-Me dina v . Holde r , 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th C ir. 2013) (finding a “ se rie s of worst-c a se sc e na rios” insuffic ie nt to c om

pe l the c o nc lusion tha

t pe t itione r wa s m ore like ly tha n not to be torture d upon re turn to his c ountry ); Zhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th C ir. 2011). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t C he n c ould not de m onstra

te tha t she ha d suffe re d torture in thepa st nor tha t it would be

m ore like ly tha n not tha t she would suffe r torture if she re turne d to C hina
. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

5