NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHICAI JIN,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-595

Agency No.

A205-775-885

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 10, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Zhicai Jin petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge denying his 

claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition.

* 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).

FILED

JUL 12 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-595

Where, as here, the BIA “conducts its own review of the evidence and 

law,” our review is limited to its decision. Perez-Portillo v. Garland, 56 F.4th 

788, 792 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th 

Cir. 2013)). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, 

meaning that the agency’s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable 

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Salguero Sosa v. 

Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1217–18 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Nasrallah v. Barr, 

140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020)); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

1. “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner must demonstrate a ‘wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Salguero Sosa, 

55 F.4th at 1218 (quoting Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 

2021)). “A petitioner can satisfy this burden by showing past persecution, which 

gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution.” Id.

Although the record shows that Jin suffered mistreatment at the hands of 

Chinese police after protesting the planned demolition of his neighborhood, 

substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the mistreatment did

not rise to the level of persecution. See, e.g., Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1058 (no past 

persecution where the petitioner was beaten, slapped, forced into a van, 

threatened, and pushed around); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1017–18 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (no past persecution where police detained petitioner for three days, 

struck him ten times in the back with a rod, and ordered him to report back 
3 22-595

regularly to the police station); Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 

2001) (no past persecution where the petitioner was detained for five or six 

days, but was not “beaten, tortured, or threatened” during the course of the 

detention). And Jin makes no argument that he has a well-founded fear of future 

persecution except to point to his past mistreatment. Accordingly, Jin’s petition 

is denied with respect to his asylum claim.

2. Although Jin also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his claim 

for withholding of removal, he fails to address this claim in his opening brief. 

This claim is therefore forfeited. See Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th 991, 999 n.6 (9th 

Cir. 2021). 

DENIED.