Case Name: Malika Junayevna ABDURAHMONOVA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-06
Citations: 698 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 14-73879
Parties: Malika Junayevna ABDURAHMONOVA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
Malika Junayevna ABDURAHMONOVA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73879
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 2, 2017
OCTOBER 06, 2017
Reynold E. Finnegan, II, Esquire, Senior Counsel, Finnegan & Diba a Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Sergio Sarkany, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Malika Junayevna Abdurah-monova, a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of an adverse decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") on her claims for asylum and withholding of removal. She does not challenge the BIA's adverse decision with respect to her application for Convention Against Torture relief. We deny the petition.
1. The BIA's finding that Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum is supported by substantial evidence. See Zhiqiang Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing standard of review). The BIA affirmed the immigration judge's finding that Petitioner suffered retaliation not because of a political opinion or imputed political opinion, but instead because of her "interfer[ence] with criminal activity" by human traffickers. The record does not compel a contrary finding.
2. The BIA incorrectly applied the "one central reason" standard to the claim for withholding of removal, a standard that applies only to the claim for asylum. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358-59 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that a less-exacting standard applies to claims for withholding). But we need not remand this case to the BIA because doing so would be "an idle and useless formality." N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 766 n.6, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969). Given the agency's finding that there was no nexus between the harm and a protected ground, neither the BIA's basic reasoning nor the result would change.
Petition DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. Petitioner no longer asserts that she experienced persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.