Jie Miao v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIE MIAO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71323
Agency No. A200-795-533
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2018
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District
Judge.
Jie Miao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her applications for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 27 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
the petition.
1. The BIA’s determination that Miao did not suffer past persecution was
supported by substantial evidence. The treatment received by Miao during her
detention after being arrested at a house church, while perhaps harsh, does not rise
to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018, 1021 (9th Cir.
2006) (holding that a petitioner who was detained for multiple days, hit with a rod
ten times, and forced to sign a letter admitting he had “done wrong” and to report
weekly to the police had not been persecuted). Miao also claims that she lost her
job, but provided no evidence of its importance to her economic wellbeing. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that “mere
economic disadvantage alone” does not constitute persecution (quoting Gormley v.
Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2004))).
2. Substantial evidence also supported the BIA’s determination that Miao did
not carry her burden of establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution. The
2009 State Department Report for China states that the “freedom to participate in
religious activities continued to increase in many areas,” although notes that the
Chinese “government continued to strictly control religious practice and repress
religious activity outside government-sanctioned organizations and registered places
of worship,” and that house churches continue to face increased interference “in
periods preceding sensitive anniversaries.” But, the incidents involving churches

-- 2 of 3 --

3
detailed in the Report only involved harassment of church leaders, not congregants
like Miao.
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --