JIN HE-CHUAN V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-73863 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 02 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIN HE-CHUAN, AKA Chaun Jin He, AKA Ming Yu, No. 13-73863 Agency No. A087-518-513 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 31, 2016** Pasadena, California Before: SILVERMAN, FISHER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jin He-Chuan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. He-Chuan contends Chinese officials persecuted him, and would arrest him upon his return, on account of his political activity in refusing the government’s demand for his parent’s land. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the government’s interest in He-Chuan derived from a legitimate prosecutorial purpose after he kicked a government official and potentially vandalized government equipment. See Lin v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Ordinary prosecution for criminal activity is not persecution ‘on account of’ a protected ground.”); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “one central reason” for persecution). Because HeChuan failed to establish a nexus between his past or feared mistreatment and a protected ground, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2
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.
