JIAHAO JIANG V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-70651 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 06 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JIAHAO JIANG; LIXIN REN, Petitioners, No. 12-70651 Agency Nos. A099-709-277 A099-709-278 v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 4, 2015** Pasadena, California Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. Jiahao Jiang and his wife Li Xin Ren petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying Jiang’s application for asylum.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. * 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). 1 Li Xin Ren was listed as a derivative beneficiary on the asylum application. Petitioners are citizens of the People’s Republic of China. In 2005, Jiang alleges government authorities destroyed his rabbit farm, which was located on land leased from the government. He also alleges he was removed from the land with force and without notice or compensation. Jiang, along with other villagers who lost their land, attempted to seek compensation for his property from the district government. He alleges he was detained and tortured by the police until he agreed to sign a document giving up all claims to compensation. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even assuming credibility, Jiang did not establish that “one central reason” for his persecution was “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Sangha v. I.N.S., 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 739–41 (9th Cir. 2009). The record does not compel a finding that Jiang “engaged in any activities” that could be perceived as political beliefs, or that the police were “motivated by [Jiang’s] political beliefs, perceived or otherwise.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1488–90. Thus, we need not reach the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B) (to be eligible for asylum Jiang must establish he was persecuted, or has a wellfounded fear of persecution, on account of an enumerated ground). PETITION 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.
