Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a petitioner from China sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court, exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, reviewed the findings for substantial evidence. The petitioner's claims revolved around an incident involving a government request to relocate a burial site due to a commercial project. The court affirmed the Immigration Judge's determination that the petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution related to a protected ground, as his interactions with the government lacked political motivation. Consequently, his asylum claim was unsupported, and he failed to meet the higher evidentiary standard for withholding of removal. Moreover, the petitioner did not establish a likelihood of torture upon return to China, undermining his CAT claim. Ultimately, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the denial of relief, and the petition was denied. The decision is non-precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Convention Against Torture (CAT) Reliefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Yang did not prove that it was more likely than not he would face torture if returned to China, thus failing to substantiate his CAT claim.
Reasoning: Additionally, he failed to substantiate his CAT claim, as he did not prove it was more likely than not that he would be tortured upon return to China.
Eligibility for Asylumsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Yang failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground, as his testimony did not link government actions to a political opinion.
Reasoning: Substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that Yang did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on an enumerated ground.
Non-precedential Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit, aligning with Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The petition for review is denied, and the disposition is not suitable for publication or citation in this circuit, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Review Standard under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court assesses the substantial evidence supporting the Immigration Judge's decision, only overturning it if the evidence compels a different outcome.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews the case for substantial evidence, reversing only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
Withholding of Removal Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: As Yang could not establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard required for withholding of removal.
Reasoning: Consequently, Yang's inability to demonstrate eligibility for asylum means he also did not meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal.