Li v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONGZHOU LI, No. 22-1446
Agency No.
Petitioner, A216-258-918
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW, M. SMITH, and RAYES.***
Yongzhou Li (“Li”), a citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
***
The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here
except as necessary to provide context. Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s
decision and adds its own reasoning, “we review both the IJ and the BIA’s
decision.” Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2010). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Li
failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. To be
eligible for asylum, a petitioner must present evidence of a nexus between his
past or feared persecution and his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular group, or political opinion.” Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1281
(9th Cir. 1998). The agency reasonably concluded that the attackers who beat
Petitioner did not know of or impute to Petitioner any political opinion (the only
protected category he alleged) and instead attacked him in a private act of
extortion. See id. (holding that applicants who had allegedly been attacked in an
extortion attempt had, “at most show[n] they had been the victim[s] of criminal
activity in Russia”). Li does not present any evidence that “compels a contrary
conclusion” to the one reached by the BIA. See id. Therefore, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s denial of both Li’s claims for asylum and
withholding of removal. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“[F]ailure to satisfy the lesser standard of proof required to establish eligibility
for asylum necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate eligibility for
withholding of deportation as well.”).
2 22-1446
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Li
did not establish eligibility for CAT protection. To qualify for CAT protection,
a noncitizen must show “that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
upon removal, and that the torture will be inflicted at the instigation of, or with
the consent or acquiescence of, the government.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d
940, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). “Torture” is “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman
treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment that do not amount to torture.” 8 C.F.R. §
1208.18(a)(2). The record does not compel the conclusion that Li’s treatment in
China rose to the level of torture. The agency reasonably found that Li lived in
China and free from harm for months after the attack and that Petitioner’s
generalized allegations of mistreatment by the Chinese government was not
objective evidence showing that China acquiesced to torture specifically
targeted at Li. See Lopez v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018)
(denying relief where allegations of mistreatment were not specific to the
petitioner). And, as the IJ found, Li did not demonstrate that he could not
relocate to another area of China without being harmed. See Aguilar Fermin v.
Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir. 2020).
PETITION DENIED.
3 22-1446