Yonghui Lin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YONGHUI LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72911
Agency No. A089-795-827
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 8, 2021**
Portland, Oregon
Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Yonghui Lin, a citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge
(IJ) order denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Lin challenges only the denial of his asylum
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
OCT 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
claim. We review for substantial evidence and may grant relief only if the record
compels a contrary conclusion. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th
Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny Lin’s petition.
Assuming without deciding that Lin testified credibly, substantial evidence
supports the IJ and BIA’s determination that Lin had not met his burden of
demonstrating past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. 8
U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The BIA permissibly concluded that
Lin had not suffered past persecution. Persecution is an “extreme concept” that
“does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). Lin was
assaulted once, but there is no indication of the severity of the beating, and Lin was
not detained. And while he endured threats, the threats were not fulfilled. Villegas
Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Lim v. I.N.S., 224
F.3d 929, 932 (9th Cir. 2000)) (“Mere threats, without more, do not necessarily
compel a finding of past persecution.”). Considering all aspects of Lin’s experience
in China cumulatively, see Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1063–65 (9th Cir.
2021), the record does not compel a finding of past persecution.
In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA’s determination that
Lin did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground. Lin claims that he would be arrested and imprisoned if returned

-- 2 of 3 --

3
to China, but the record does not compel the conclusion that his fear is objectively
reasonable. See Nagoulko v. I.N.S., 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding
that speculative fear of future harm cannot form the basis of an asylum claim). When
questioned about his admission that he was not arrested or harassed in the three
months that he remained in China following the altercation with officials, Lin
admitted he did not know why he now would be persecuted if he were now to return
to China some eleven years later. Thus, substantial evidence supports the
determination that Lin has not established a well-founded fear of future persecution.1
PETITION DENIED.
1 The IJ found that Lin was also ineligible for asylum because he had firmly resettled
in Mexico. While Lin challenges the IJ’s resettlement decision, that issue is not
before us because the BIA did not adopt this portion of the IJ’s decision. See Andia
v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“In reviewing the
decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”).

-- 3 of 3 --