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

e sponde nt . No. 10-72725 Age n c y No. A099-900-159 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 and Subm itte d June 4, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, Se nior Distric t Judge . ** C ha i pe titions for re vie w of the de te rm inations of theB oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) that he fa ile d to e sta blish fa c ts qua l ify ing him for a sy lum

and withholding of rem o v a l. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e and will re ve rse only



# FIL ED JUN 11 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Se n i or Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Ne wYork, sitting by de signa tion.if the re c ord c om pe ls a c ontra ry c onc lusion. Singh-K

aur v . IN S , 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th C ir. 1999). Assum ing pa st pe rse c ution, there c ord doe s not c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t C ha i e s ta blishe d a ne xus be twe e n the ha rm he suffe re d a

nd one of the sta

t utorily prote c te d grounds. Se e Molina-Morale s v . IN S , 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th C ir. 2001). W hile C h a i c onfronte d Fam ily Pla nning offic ia ls, he did so with the be lie f and m aking thea c c u s ation tha t the y ha d ta ke n a bribe . The B IA thus c onc lude d that C ha i wa s the n de ta ine d a nd m istre ate d on a c c ount of this ac c usation, whic h wa s the only c e ntra l re a son for the pe rse c ution. C ha i’ s own te stim ony supports this c onc l usion, a s he sta

te d he wa s wa

rne d by the Fam i ly

Pla nning offic ia ls not to

“ e xpose the bribe ry

of the dire c tor.” The re fore , a b se nt e v ide nc e c om

p e lling the c onc lusion tha

t C h a i wa s ha

rm e d ba se d

on his opposition to C

hina ’ s c oe rc ive popula tion c ontrol polic y , he ha s not e sta b lishe d a ne xus to a

prote c te d ground. C ha i a lso did not e sta

blish a ne xus to a

prote c t e d ground by

e xposing gove rnm e nt c orruption. C ha i a c c use d the Fam i ly Pla nning Dire c tor of ta

king a bribe , but the re is no e vide nc e in the re c o rd tha t the re wa s a c tua l gove rnm e nt c orruption a

nd tha t the ha rm oc c urre d in re t a lia tion to tha

t e xposure . The B IA c onc lude d tha

t the ha rm whic h oc c urre d wa s the re sult of a pure ly pe rsona l dispute

2ba se d on the bribe ry a c c usations; the

re c ord doe s not c om

pe l a diffe re nt c onc lusion. Se e Pe re

z-Ramire z v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 953, 957 (9th C ir. 2011). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t C ha i doe s not have a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. C ha i ha s not shown a ny “ ‘ c re dible , dire c t, a n d spe c ific e vide nc e ’ ” in the re c o rd tha t would support “ a

re a sona b le fe ar of pe rse c ution.” Ac e w ic

z v . IN S , 984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th C ir. 1993). Ac c ordingly , be c a

use C h a i fa i le d to de m onstra te pa st pe rse c ution or a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground, wede ny the p e tition for re v i e w a s to his a sy lum an d withholding of re

m ova l c la im s. Se e IN S v . Elias–Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3