Qingsheng Chai v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 578 F. App'x 668 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 11 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QINGSHENG CHAI, No. 10-72725
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-900-159
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District
Judge.**
Chai petitions for review of the determinations of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) that he failed to establish facts qualifying him for asylum and
withholding of removal. We review for substantial evidence and will reverse only
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
if the record compels a contrary conclusion. Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147,
1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999).
Assuming past persecution, the record does not compel the conclusion that
Chai established a nexus between the harm he suffered and one of the statutorily
protected grounds. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.
2001). While Chai confronted Family Planning officials, he did so with the belief
and making the accusation that they had taken a bribe. The BIA thus concluded
that Chai was then detained and mistreated on account of this accusation, which
was the only central reason for the persecution. Chai’s own testimony supports
this conclusion, as he stated he was warned by the Family Planning officials not to
“expose the bribery of the director.” Therefore, absent evidence compelling the
conclusion that Chai was harmed based on his opposition to China’s coercive
population control policy, he has not established a nexus to a protected ground.
Chai also did not establish a nexus to a protected ground by exposing
government corruption. Chai accused the Family Planning Director of taking a
bribe, but there is no evidence in the record that there was actual government
corruption and that the harm occurred in retaliation to that exposure. The BIA
concluded that the harm which occurred was the result of a purely personal dispute
2
based on the bribery accusations; the record does not compel a different
conclusion. See Perez-Ramirez v. Holder, 648 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2011).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Chai does not
have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Chai has not shown any “‘credible,
direct, and specific evidence’” in the record that would support “a reasonable fear
of persecution.” Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, because Chai failed to demonstrate past persecution or a
well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny
the petition for review as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See
INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992).
PETITION DENIED.
3