Kaimin Wang 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).
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for***
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAIMIN WANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72753
Agency No. A094-999-115
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submission Deferred December 7, 2012
Resubmitted December 7, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District Judge.***
Kaimin Wang, a Chinese citizen, petitions for review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an immigration
FILED
JAN 10 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
judge (“IJ”) of Wang’s application for asylum, withholding, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that Wang was
not persecuted “on account of” his actual or imputed political opinion as required
for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). The record contains evidence that Wang
was arrested, beaten, and detained for obstructing a police investigation. Wang
claims that the obstruction charge was a pretext and that Wang’s support for his
former co-workers in a labor dispute was the real reason behind his treatment by
Chinese authorities. But where, as here, “there is evidence of a legitimate
prosecutorial purpose, foreign authorities enjoy much latitude in vigorously
enforcing their laws.” Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1112 (9th Cir. 2006).
Because Wang’s alleged obstruction of a police investigation is a legitimate reason
for his arrest and detention, he has not met his burden of showing “that the
purported criminal investigation had no bona fide objective, so that political
persecution must have been the real reason for it.” Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d
1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he “necessarily
failed to satisfy the higher standard for withholding of removal.” Liu v. Holder,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
640 F.3d 918, 926 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, there is no evidence that Wang will
likely be tortured if removed to China. See Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d
1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (“To be eligible for deferral of removal under CAT, the
alien has the burden of proof to establish that it is more likely than not that he or
she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --