NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WENJIN YANG, No. 16-72605 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-178-122 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 20, 2020 Honolulu, Hawaii Before: WALLACE, BEA, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge WALLACE Wenjin Yang (Petitioner), a citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo. Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence means the agency’s factual finding is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner argues he had been persecuted by officials in China because he was fined and beaten after he intervened when officials tried to take his wife for a forced abortion. The IJ found that Petitioner was not credible. The IJ also found that even if Petitioner’s testimony had been credible, he had not suffered harm which rose to the level of persecution on account of a protected ground. Thus, he was not eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner has the burden to show he is eligible for asylum, and he must demonstrate he has suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Id. (citation omitted). “[A]n alien is not per se entitled to refugee status solely upon the fact that his spouse was forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization.” Nai Yuan Jiang v. Holder, 611 2 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). A spouse’s forced abortion fulfills only part of the alien’s burden to prove persecution. Ming Xin He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014). The alien must, therefore, demonstrate he was persecuted because of his “other resistance” to the population control program. Id. Petitioner testified he was involved in two physical altercations with family planning officials and police, over a two-day period, when the officials tried to take Petitioner’s wife forcibly for an abortion. Petitioner testified that over those two days, he was pushed, shoved to the ground, and placed in a vehicle for arrest. These physical altercations do not constitute persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020–21 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals