N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PIN SIN DONG,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-72082 Age n c y No. A097-340-190
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

Nove m b e r 16, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d HUNSAKER , C irc uit Judge s, a nd ENGLAND, *** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Pin Sin Dong (Dong), a c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the d e c ision of theB o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) dism issing he r a ppe a l of 

# FIL ED
NOV 27 2020 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble M orrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.the d e nia l of he r a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a n d de fe rra l of
re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). 1. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Dong fa ile d to e s ta b lish tha t he r suffe ring rise s to the le ve l of pa st pe rse c ution. Se e Al Ramahi
v . Holde r , 725 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th C ir. 2013) (a pply i ng the substa

ntia l e vide nc e sta nda rd). “ Pe rse c ution is a

n e xtre m e c onc e pt tha

t doe s not inc l ude e ve ry sort of tre atm e n t our soc i e ty

re ga rds a s offe nsive .” Duran-Rodrigue z v . Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2019) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). As the B IA pointe d out, Dong’ s pe rse c ution c la i m is ba s e d on a

singleinc ide nt “ in 2003 [whe n] polic e in C hina

arre ste d a

nd inte rrogate d he r, shoute d at he r, be at he r, pulle d he r ha ir, a

nd de ta i ne d he r for a

b out 48 hours a fte r she re nte d spa c e in he r
ware house to m e m

be rs of Fa lun Gong for the i r pra c t ic e .” This single

inc ide nt wa s not suffic i e ntly e xtre m e to c onstitute pe rse c ution. Se e Gu v . Gonzale

s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t a brie f de te ntion, be ating, a

nd inte rrogation did not rise to the le v e l of pe rse c ution); se e also Prasad v. IN

S , 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th C ir. 1995) (c onc luding tha t a be ating while ja ile d

for a brie f inte rrogation did not rise to the le v e l of pe rse c ution). 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s finding tha t Dong “ha s not shown tha

t she ha s a

we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution in C hina on a c c ount
2of a

prote c te d ground.” Se e Duran-Rodrigue z , 918 F.3d a

t 1029 (“ Abse n t e vide nc e of pa st pe rse c ution, [a

n a pplic ant] m

ust e sta b lish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution . . .” ) (c ita

tion omitte d). De s pite Dong’ s c la im tha t a uthoritie s “ sought he r whe re a

bouts” shortly

a fte r she fle d C hina , she fa ile d to e s ta blish tha t C hine se
a uthoritie s a

re still intere ste d in he r ove r thirte e n y e a rs a fte r the la st inquiry

into he r whe re a

bouts. 1 Dong’ s c la im

is furthe r unde rm ine d by the fa c t tha

t Dong’ s husba

nd a nd da ughte r re m a i n in C hina

unha rm e d. S e e Pagay on v . Holde r , 675 F.3d 1182, 1190–91 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ). 3. B e c a use Dong fa ile d to m e e t he r burde n of e sta b lishing e ligibility

for
a sy lum , she ne c e ssa

rily fa ils to m e e t the highe r burde n of proof re quire d for withholding of rem o v a l. Se e Ramire z-Munoz v . Ly n c h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th C ir. 2016). 4. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Dong fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t it is more like ly

tha n not shewill besubje c te d to torture if re turne d to C hina
. Se e Singh v . W hitak e r , 914 F.3d 654, 662-63 (9th C ir. 2019)

1 De spite Dong’ s c onte ntion tha t she wa s pre ve nte d from

subm itting a dditional e vide nc e on this issue to the a ge n c y , she ha s y e t to re ve a l wha

t tha t a dditional e vide nc e would ha v e be e n. 3(noting tha

t the pe titione r be ars the burde n of de m onstra ting thelike lihood of torture ). Although the c ountry re p orts in there c ord indic at e tha t the C hine se Gove rnm e nt ta

rge ts m e m

be rs of Fa lun Gong for pe rse c utory ha rm , Dong is not a Fa lun Gong m e m

b e r, nor did shee sta

blish tha t she would be ta

rge te d in C hina

in the future for re nting to Falun Gong m e m be rs in the pa st. Se e Dhital v . Muk ase y , 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008) (sta ting tha t “ the pe titione r m

ust de m onstra

te that he would besubje c t to a partic ularize d thre at of torture ” ) (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d) (e m

pha s is in original). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4