PING JIN V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-73473 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 02 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PING JIN, No. 08-73473 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-462-407 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Ping Jin, 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, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that, even if credible, Jin did not establish past persecution because the detention and physical abuse Jin experienced in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that Jin s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. See id. at 1022. Accordingly, Jin s asylum claim fails. Because Jin failed to meet his burden for asylum, it necessarily follows that he did not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA s denial of CAT relief because Jin failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-73473

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.