Court Opinion

ID: 9408534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 23:01:03.516837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:44.474915
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUL 12 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ZHICAI JIN,                                     No. 22-595
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-775-885
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                   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).
      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 ‘well-

founded 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

                                         2                                    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.

                                        3                                      22-595