Narrative Opinion Summary
Xiao Mei He, a citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that dismissed her appeal against an immigration judge's denial of her asylum application and request for withholding of removal. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Upon reviewing for substantial evidence, the court denies the petition. The BIA's determination that He did not demonstrate past persecution is supported by evidence, as her treatment by Chinese police did not meet the legal definition of persecution. Additionally, substantial evidence indicates that she failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution. Consequently, because she did not meet the lower threshold for asylum, she also could not meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. The court's decision is not to be published and does not set precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Asylum and Withholding of Removal Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court explains that failing to meet the lower threshold for asylum disqualifies the petitioner from meeting the higher standard for withholding of removal.
Reasoning: Consequently, because she did not meet the lower threshold for asylum, she also could not meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.
Definition of Persecution in Asylum Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's determination that the petitioner did not suffer past persecution is upheld as her experiences did not meet the legal threshold.
Reasoning: The BIA's determination that He did not demonstrate past persecution is supported by evidence, as her treatment by Chinese police did not meet the legal definition of persecution.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court confirms it has jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision in this immigration case.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Non-Precedential Nature of Court Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this case is not to be published and does not serve as precedent except as permitted by specific court rules.
Reasoning: The court's decision is not to be published and does not set precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard of Review for BIA Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews the BIA's decision under the substantial evidence standard, affirming the BIA's conclusions supported by the record.
Reasoning: Upon reviewing for substantial evidence, the court denies the petition.
Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecutionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, which is essential to qualify for asylum.
Reasoning: Additionally, substantial evidence indicates that she failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.