Court Opinion

ID: 9878574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:25:56.797029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:21.497530
License: Public Domain

Ikuta, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority’s denial of the petition as to asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but dissent from the majority’s remand as to withholding of removal. In Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, we recognized that any distinction between “one central reason” in the asylum statute and “a reason” in the withholding statute was inconsequential if “there was no nexus at all between the feared persecution and [a protected ground].” 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010)). In this case, the BIA concluded that Guo had not established any! nexus between either his Christianity or imputed political opinion and his claim that he would “more likely than not” suffer future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2). Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. Accordingly, I would deny the petition as to withholding of removal.