NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 29 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUXI YANG, No. 18-72206 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-186-734 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: KELLY,*** GOULD, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Yang, a native and citizen of China, was admitted to the United States in February 2012, as a nonimmigrant visitor, with authorization to remain until August * 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 Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2012. Yang came to the United States after being arrested and detained by the police following a dispute about the demolition of his parents’ home. After he was served with a Notice to Appear, Yang filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). Following a hearing, the IJ denied his applications. Yang appealed to the BIA, and the BIA also denied his applications. This appeal followed. When the BIA issues its own decision, but relies in part on the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). We review claims of due process violations de novo. We reverse these claims only if petitioner shows that the proceeding was “so fundamentally unfair” that he “was prevented from reasonably presenting his case,” and he was prejudiced. Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 693 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). We review the agency’s factual determinations under the substantial evidence standard, meaning that the agency’s determinations are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We must uphold an agency determination “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). To reverse the agency’s finding, we must determine “that the evidence not only supports [the contrary] conclusion, but compels it.” Id. The substantial evidence 2 standard also governs review of the agency’s application of legal standards to the facts of the applicant’s asylum or withholding claim. See id. at 483-84. To be eligible for asylum, an alien must qualify as a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). A “refugee” is defined as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(1)(42)(A). An alien ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals