Zejun Lei v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

21-70960Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit17 feb 2022

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZEJUN LEI,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70960
Agency No. A208-430-047
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,***
District Judge.
FILED
FEB 17 2022
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the
District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Zejun Lei (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review ‘denials of asylum, withholding of removal,
and CAT relief for substantial evidence,’” Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212
(9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir.
2017)), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum because Petitioner has
not shown past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.
“Persecution is an extreme concept and has been defined as the infliction of
suffering or harm in a way regarded as offensive.” Kaur v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d
1216, 1222 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). We
have held that detention and physical beating on one occasion, with no medical
treatment or adverse employment consequences, are not sufficient to establish
persecution. Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2006). Petitioner has
not suffered past persecution. While found credible, he alleged only one incident,
in which he was detained for ten hours and did not suffer any injuries requiring
medical treatment. Further, although Petitioner signed a notice of punishment
2

-- 2 of 4 --

while detained, his religious freedom was not sufficiently restricted to constitute
persecution. Compare Gu, 454 F.3d at 1017–18, 1020–21, with Guo, 897 F.3d at
1215–16.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Petitioner failed to show a
well-founded fear of future persecution. “Absent evidence of past persecution, [an
applicant] must establish a well-founded fear of future persecution by showing
both a subjective fear of future persecution, as well as an objectively reasonable
possibility of persecution upon return to the country in question.” Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Petitioner left China in January 2015, and has not provided evidence that
the Chinese authorities are still interested in him. He was released from his one-
time detention without being required to report back to the police on a regular
basis. His former wife has been able to attend church activities without
harassment. Petitioner thus failed to show a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
For the same reasons, substantial evidence supports the denial of
withholding of removal. Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An
applicant who fails to satisfy the lower standard for asylum necessarily fails to
satisfy the more demanding standard for withholding of removal.”).
3

-- 3 of 4 --

Petitioner does not articulate any argument in support of CAT relief in his
briefs. His challenge of the denial of CAT protection is therefore waived. Cui v.
Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Because [the petitioner] does
not address withholding or CAT relief in his brief, he waived any objections to the
denial of these requests.”).
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.