Ping Jin 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PING JIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73473
Agency No. A098-462-407
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ping Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73473 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if credible, Jin did
not establish past persecution because the detention and physical abuse Jin
experienced in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006). In addition, substantial evidence supports
the BIA’s finding that Jin’s fear of future persecution was not objectively
reasonable. See id. at 1022. Accordingly, Jin’s asylum claim fails.
Because Jin failed to meet his burden for asylum, it necessarily follows that
he did not meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Jin failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to China. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --