SIN TJHIN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-72337 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 5, 2014.
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 14 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SIN MUI TJHIN, Petitioner, No. 10-72337 Agency No. A097-369-290 v. ORDER ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Before: WARDLAW and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DAWSON, District Judge.* The memorandum disposition filed June 5, 2014, is amended as follows. After the first full paragraph on page 2, insert the following new paragraph: Because the BIA s decision rested on its conclusion that the harm suffered by Tjhin did not rise to the level of persecution, there was no need for the BIA to address her argument regarding the nexus of her harm to a protected ground. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) ( An applicant alleging past persecution has the burden of establishing that (1) [her] treatment rises to the level of persecution, (2) the persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control. (emphasis added)). * The Honorable Kent J. Dawson, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. With the disposition thus amended, the panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Wardlaw has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Fisher and Dawson have recommended denial. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. No active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is DENIED. No future petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
