Court Opinion

ID: 9964322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 18:00:49.462848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:18.964640
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 29 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIANGDING ZHEN,                                 No. 23-704
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A216-528-989
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted April 9, 2024**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District Judge.***

      Xiangding Zhen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an immigration

      *
             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).
      ***
            The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition for review.

      Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA

1994), and expressly adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision, we “look through the

BIA’s decision and treat the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision for the

purposes of [the] appeal.” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010).

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and we review de

novo questions of law. Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland, 8 F.4th 1108, 1113 (9th Cir.

2021).

      1.   Asylum and Withholding of Removal

      Zhen argues that he suffered past persecution and established a well-founded

fear of future persecution on account of his membership in the proposed particular

social group of “persons wrongly arrested in China.” “Both asylum and

withholding depend on a finding that the applicant was harmed, or threatened with

harm, on account of a protected ground. One such ground is that the applicant is a

member of a particular social group.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th

824, 833 (9th Cir. 2022). The BIA determined that Zhen could not establish his

membership in such a group because it was not clear that he had been wrongly

arrested. This determination is supported by substantial evidence. Zhen was

                                        2                                    23-704
arrested after he was present at the scene of a murder committed by his brother.

After Zhen admitted to providing his brother with money that his brother used to

purchase the murder weapon, he was charged with intentional harm and detained

for ten months before he was released. Because Zhen has not established his

membership in the proposed particular social group of “persons wrongly arrested

in China,” he cannot establish that he suffered past persecution or has a well-

founded fear of future persecution on account of such membership. Villegas

Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2021).

      Zhen next argues that he suffered past persecution and established a well-

founded fear of future persecution on account of his actual or imputed anti-

government political opinion. To establish past persecution on account of an

imputed political opinion, Zhen must show that his persecutors believed that Zhen

held a political opinion and that he was harmed on account of that imputed

political opinion. Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). The BIA

determined that Zhen failed to meet this burden. This determination is supported

by substantial evidence. There is no evidence indicating that the police believed

that he held an anti-government political opinion or mistreated him on account of

that opinion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zhen

was charged and detained on account of his connection to the murder.

      Zhen also contends that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution

                                        3                                      23-704
because his decision to leave China “may constitute a protected nexus of anti-

government political opinion or imputed political opinion.” Zhen’s decision to

leave China is not evidence of an actual or imputed anti-government political

opinion sufficient to establish that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution

on account of that opinion. Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1197 (9th Cir. 2007).

We thus deny Zhen’s petition as to asylum.1

      Because Zhen has not met the lesser burden of establishing his eligibility for

asylum, he “necessarily fails to satisfy the more demanding standard for

withholding of removal.” Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2020).

We therefore deny Zhen’s petition as to withholding of removal.

      2. CAT Relief

      Zhen argues that the BIA also erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of CAT

relief. “To receive deferral of removal under the CAT, an applicant must establish

that ‘it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed.’”

Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 768–69 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2)). Zhen has not presented any evidence indicating that it would be

more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to China. Wakkary v.

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence thus

1
 In light of our resolution of these claims, we need not reach the parties’
arguments concerning the one-year bar to asylum. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).

                                         4                                    23-704
supports the BIA’s determination that Zhen is not entitled to CAT relief. We

therefore deny the petition as to CAT relief.

      The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        5                                 23-704