Jian Gan Zhen v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Jian Gan Zhen v. Holder

371 F. App'x 849

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 25, 2010

Docket07-74055

StatusUnpublished

This text of 371 F. App'x 849 (Jian Gan Zhen v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jian Gan Zhen v. Holder, 371 F. App'x 849 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

371 F. App'x 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jian-gan-zhen-v-holder-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack