NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DUAN XUE, No. 16-72697 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-253-745 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, GOULD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Duan Xue (“Xue”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Xue’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the parties are familiar with the facts * 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). and procedural history of the case, we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. Where the BIA incorporates the findings of the IJ as its own, we review both the BIA and IJ decisions. Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 2008). Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”), “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The INA delegates discretion to the Attorney General to grant asylum to a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b). A refugee is a person unable or unwilling to return to her 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)(42)(A). To qualify for withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), a noncitizen must establish by a “clear probability” that her “life or freedom would be threatened” upon return to her country because of her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1199 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). The “clear probability” standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, in part, because withholding of removal is a mandatory form of relief. Id. (citation omitted). So, “failure to satisfy the lesser standard of proof 2 required to establish eligibility for asylum necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation as well.” Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995). To establish entitlement for CAT protection, an applicant must show that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if removed to the proposed country of removal. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). “Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals