Ji, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70404 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 25 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONGTIAN JI, No. 08-70404 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-364-729 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Dongtian Ji, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Ji did not allege he experienced past persecution. Ji testified he feared being blacklisted in China based on his former newspaper business in Hungary, which would ruin his business and result in cancellation of his passport. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that, even if he were eligible for asylum, Ji failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in China because he testified he sold his newspaper business and he was able to successfully renew his passport. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner s future fear was not objectively reasonable because it was too speculative). Accordingly, Ji s asylum claim fails. Because Ji has failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-70404

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.