Narrative Opinion Summary
Xiao Mei He, a citizen of China, seeks judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that dismissed her appeal against an immigration judge's denial of her asylum and withholding of removal applications. The jurisdiction for this review is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The court applied a substantial evidence standard and found that He did not demonstrate past persecution, as the treatment she received from Chinese police did not meet the legal threshold for persecution. Additionally, the court determined that He failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution. As a result, her failure to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum also meant she could not meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal. The petition for review is denied, and this decision is not suitable for publication or precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Criteria for Asylum Based on Persecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Xiao Mei He failed to demonstrate that she had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution, which is necessary for asylum eligibility.
Reasoning: He did not demonstrate past persecution, as the treatment she received from Chinese police did not meet the legal threshold for persecution. Additionally, the court determined that He failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Judicial Review Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the BIA decision under the jurisdiction provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, applying the substantial evidence standard.
Reasoning: The jurisdiction for this review is under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Non-Precedential Decisions Under 9th Cir. R. 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not intended for publication or to serve as precedent except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The petition for review is denied, and this decision is not suitable for publication or precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard of Proof for Withholding of Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Because Xiao Mei He could not meet the standard of proof necessary for asylum, she also failed to meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal.
Reasoning: As a result, her failure to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum also meant she could not meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal.
Substantial Evidence Standard in Immigration Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court used the substantial evidence standard to evaluate the evidence presented by Xiao Mei He and found it insufficient to establish past persecution.
Reasoning: The court applied a substantial evidence standard and found that He did not demonstrate past persecution, as the treatment she received from Chinese police did not meet the legal threshold for persecution.