NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIN NI, No. 19-72952 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-340-986 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Immigration Judge Submitted October 6, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL, *** District Judge * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. 1 Lin Ni appeals the order of an immigration judge (IJ) reinstating a prior order of removal and affirming an asylum officer’s determination that Ni did not establish either a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground, or torture, if returned to China. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.31(g)(1)). We deny the petition. Ni challenges the IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination. We review this determination for substantial evidence and must “uphold the IJ’s conclusion that [Ni] did not establish a reasonable fear of torture [or persecution] unless, based on the evidence, ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014)). Ni contends that he suffered past persecution and that there is a reasonable possibility he would be persecuted if returned to China because of his 2012 protests against the demolition of his house. Ni alleges that his anti-government political opinion led to an arrest on false charges, mistreatment in custody, and subsequent police inquiries after his release. Considering the undisputed evidence that Ni was arrested and detained for assault after a security official fell trying to push Ni during a protest at a government building, and that the neighbor with Ni at the time wasn’t arrested, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that 2 officials acted against Ni because of the alleged assault rather than because of a belief that Ni held an anti-government political opinion. PETITION DENIED. 3 19-72952 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Lin Ni v. William Barr 9 October 2020 Agency Unpublished ec943fe61643c6114c2939df7e4d5f09321fad9a
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals