Jian Chen v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 18 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIAN R. CHEN, No. 20-71387
Petitioner, Agency No. A203-599-196
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 8, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: BYBEE, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jian Rong Chen seeks review of the denial of her application for
withholding of removal, asylum, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). Chen bases her claims on treatment that she and her family faced
*
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).
at the hands of the local Chinese government after they resisted efforts to take their
family home under eminent domain. She also alleges persecution because of her
Catholic religious affiliation.1 The Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the petition, citing a lack of nexus for the
withholding claim, failure to qualify under CAT, and prohibition of asylum under
the now-invalid transit bar of 84 Fed. Reg. 33,829 (July 16, 2019). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and deny the petition.
Where the BIA affirms the IJ citing its decision in Matter of Burbano, 20
I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (B.I.A. 1994), and adding its own analysis, this court
reviews the factual findings of the IJ and BIA for substantial evidence. See
Bondarenko v. Holder, 733 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2013); Melkonian v. Ashcroft,
320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). A petitioner contending that the BIA’s
findings are erroneous must establish that the evidence not only supports that
conclusion, but compels it. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051,
1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (“A finding by the IJ is not supported by substantial
1
Although Chen attempts to raise her alleged religious persecution here, the
BIA correctly deemed the claim waived on appeal, and we cannot consider claims
not properly exhausted before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071,
1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in
an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.” (citing Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004))).
2
evidence when any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary based on the evidence in the record.” (cleaned up)).
1. Chen challenges the IJ and BIA’s finding of no nexus between her
treatment and her claimed particular social group of “family.”2 She fails to
demonstrate that the record compels a different conclusion. To establish nexus for
withholding of removal, Chen need only show that the purported protected ground
is “a reason” for her persecution, a “less demanding standard than [the] ‘one
central reason’” asylum standard. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351,
360 (9th Cir. 2017). Although Chen contends that the BIA erred in affirming the
finding of no nexus, she points to no evidence in the record that compels a contrary
conclusion. Rather, Chen seems to contend that because her entire family was
targeted, it necessarily follows that she was targeted because of her familial
membership. Yet, an “applicant’s membership in a family-based particular social
group does not necessarily mean than any harm inflicted or threatened by the
persecutor is because of, or on account of, the family membership.” See Matter of
L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 43 (B.I.A. 2017). Such is the case here. First, Chen
2
Chen does not contest the IJ and BIA’s findings with respect to her second
social group and any challenge to them is waived. See Tijani, 628 F.3d at 1080(“[W]e generally will not take up arguments not raised in an alien’s opening brief
before this court.”).
3
only suffered injury when she directly opposed the actions of the government
officials. Second, other villagers suffered the same treatment when they opposed
the government action. Finally, several of Chen’s family members, including her
husband and children, were never targeted. Taken together, these facts support the
IJ and BIA’s determination that the officials were not motivated by Chen’s familial
membership. In light of the entire record, the agency’s finding of no nexus for
withholding is supported by substantial evidence, and this finding is determinative
of the asylum claim as well.
2. The government concedes that the transit bar under which the agency
denied Chen’s asylum claim is no longer good law and cannot support the claim.
However, remand would be futile in light of the nexus determination. A lack of
nexus under withholding’s more generous “a reason” standard is dispositive of
finding a lack of nexus under asylum’s stricter “one central reason” standard. See
Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, any remand
would be futile. See de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1019, 1023 n.1 (9th
Cir. 2007).
3. Under CAT, it is the petitioner’s burden to establish that “it is more
likely than not” that she will be tortured if she returns to China, either by
government officials or with government officials’ acquiescence. 8 C.F.R.
4
§ 1208.16(c)(2); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014).
She must show a “particularized threat” of torture. Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d
1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389
F.3d 917, 936 (9th Cir. 2004)). Chen is not entitled to CAT protection if her
claims of possible torture are speculative. See, e.g., Blandino-Medina v. Holder,
712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding a “series of worst-case scenarios”
insufficient to compel the conclusion that petitioner was more likely than not to be
tortured upon return to his country); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th
Cir. 2011).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Chen could
not demonstrate that she had suffered torture in the past nor that it would be more
likely than not that she would suffer torture if she returned to China.
PETITION DENIED.
5