Court Opinion

ID: 9823206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:49:23.82828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:16.876800
License: Public Domain

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the events recounted by Hong Wu Ni do not rise to the level of persecution. I do not agree with the majority that the facts of this case are similar to those we considered in Nai Yuan Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir.2010). In Jiang, we referenced petitioner’s “persistent defiance of the coercive population control policy,” even after the forced abortion. Id. at 1094-1095. In contrast, Ni presented no evidence of post-abortion defiance on his part.
Since our decision in Jiang, we have clarified that a petitioner who seeks asylum due to his spouse’s forced abortion, “must show substantial evidence of further persecution in support of his claims.” He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.2014). Because Ni presented no “evidence of further persecution,” id., the BIA properly dismissed his appeal. As in He, no remand is warranted, considering Ni’s failure to present sufficient evidence of persecution. See id. at 796-98.