Opinion ID: 2982260
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Withholding of Removal & Protection under CAT

Text: Ni’s petition for withholding of removal fails for the same reasons as her asylum claim. “[A]n applicant seeking withholding of removal faces a more stringent burden than what is required on a claim for asylum.” Urbina-Mejir, 597 F.3d at 365 (internal quotation marks omitted). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate it is more likely than not that, if removed to a designated country, her “life or freedom would be threatened” on account of a protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Thus, an applicant who fails to establish her eligibility for asylum necessarily fails to establish her eligibility for withholding of removal. Berri v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 390, 397 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005)). Here, since Ni has not established she is eligible for asylum, she likewise cannot show eligibility for withholding of removal. Ni’s claim for protection under CAT also fails. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and Ni’s claims are based on the same circumstances alleged in her asylum application. Thus, for the reasons given above, there is substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s determination that Ni has not shown it is more likely than not that she will be tortured upon returning to China. See Ben Hamida v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 734, 741–42 (6th Cir. 2007).