Kai He v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAI HE,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72344
Agency No. A094-793-492
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 11, 2017
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Kai He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
FILED
OCT 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
appellate jurisdiction rests on 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we DENY the petition.
The death of Appellant’s mother, although tragic, cannot be imputed to
Appellant, because he has failed to show “a pattern of persecution closely tied to”
him. Mgoian v. I.N.S., 184 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Arriaga-
Barrientos v. U.S.I.N.S., 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991)). As a result,
Appellant’s claim of past persecution is premised on a single incident of beating
and detention, which is not sufficient. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-
21 (9th Cir. 2006); Prasad v. I.N.S., 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995).
Appellant has also failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.
Appellant has not reported subsequent acts of violence against his father and sister,
who both remain in China and continue to attend an underground house church.
See Hakeem v. I.N.S., 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of
persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated
family members continue to live in the country without incident.”).
Because Appellant failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he has not met
“the higher burden of proving” he is entitled to withholding of removal. Kumar v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006). Appellant has also failed to show
that the record compels a finding that he would be subject to torture upon return to
2

-- 2 of 3 --

China. We do not address the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, because the BIA
correctly concluded Appellant was not entitled to relief even assuming he was
credible.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --