Court Opinion

ID: 8605899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 03:07:40.161692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:15.988484
License: Public Domain

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring.
Both the IJ and the BIA concluded that Jin had failed to meet his burden of proving that his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable. I agree. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 478 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); see also Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).
*725Contrary to Jin’s argument on appeal, the record demonstrates that the BIA has “give[n] reasons for its decision[ ] showing that it has properly considered the circumstances” of Jin’s individual case. Santana-Figueroa v. INS, 644 F.2d 1354, 1357 (9th Cir.1981).