Yan Hou v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAN HOU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73054
Agency No. A099-364-841
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: FARRIS, N.R. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. The Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of Yan Hou’s
applications for asylum and withholding of removal is supported by substantial
evidence. The record does not compel the conclusion that Hou’s political
opinion—in the form of whistle-blowing activities at her factory—was “one central
FILED
FEB 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Page 2 of 2
reason” for the mistreatment she received. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009). Rather, the record
supports the BIA’s conclusion that her mistreatment was motivated solely by her
confrontation with the factory director. Indeed, Hou was not mistreated following
her initial in-person complaint to the director, and the director did not have her
arrested when he learned of her letters to government officials. It is true that one
police officer accused Hou of making “inflamed accusations against the
leadership.” But even taking that statement into account, the record does not
compel the conclusion that Hou’s whistle-blowing activities, standing alone, would
have led to her mistreatment. See id. at 741–42.
2. The BIA’s conclusion that Hou’s mistreatment in custody did not rise to
the level of torture is also supported by substantial evidence. She “undeniably
suffered abuse,” but the record does not compel the conclusion that the abuse she
suffered amounted to torture. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055–56
(9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --