Jian Gan Zhen v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIAN GAN ZHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74055
Agency No. A077-958-002
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jian Gan Zhen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
MAR 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-74055 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the incident in which
government officials slapped Zhen for refusing to pay a bribe did not rise to the
level of persecution, see Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995), and
the agency’s finding that the economic harms Zhen suffered did not rise to the
level of persecution, see Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177-80 (9th Cir.
2004). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that
Zhen’s refusal to pay the bribe to government officials was insufficient to establish
either that he was a whistle-blower, or that the government officials harmed him on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84
(1992) (record did not establish persecution was on account of a protected ground);
cf. Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 736-37 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (explaining that
‘extortion plus’ is necessary to satisfy nexus requirement). Accordingly, Zhen’s
asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --