NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YIHONG JIN, No. 18-72750 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-266-237 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2020** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. YiHong Jin (“Jin”), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of removal. Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014). We review denials of asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence, id., and we deny the petition. I. Jin claims persecution on account of her Christian religion. In May 2010, police arrested Jin as she was leaving a Christian house church service. She was detained overnight at the police station and interrogated. During the questioning, one of the officers struck Jin on her arms and shoulders with his baton. Jin suffered bruises but did not require medical care. Before Jin’s release, her father paid a fine of 2,000 yuan. Jin was also forced to sign a guarantee letter agreeing that she would not attend any house church gatherings and would report regularly to the police. II. Jin argues that her “arrest, detention, assault, and release conditions” show that she experienced past persecution and is entitled to relief under asylum. The totality of the evidence does not compel a finding of past persecution, see Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998), and Jin has not established 1 Jin failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection in her appeal to the BIA. Therefore, the BIA determined that she had waived her claim to protection under CAT. Jin does not challenge that determination in this appeal. 2 a well-founded fear of future persecution. Jin’s detention, interrogation, and beating closely mirror that suffered by the petitioner in Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2006), where the court concluded “that the evidence [did] not compel a result contrary to the BIA’s.” Id. at 1021. While Jin’s statement in her brief is correct that the court has “explicitly rejected the implication . . . that persecution stems from the severity of the beating,” incidents suffered by petitioners are considered under the totality of the circumstances standard. See, e.g., Gu, 454 F.3d at 1020–21. The BIA recognized that Jin’s detention and beating were “harsh” but concluded that they did “not rise to the level ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals