NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIN NI,
No. 19-72952
Petitioner,
Agency No. A077-340-986
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of a
Final Order of the Immigration Judge
Submitted October 6, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL, ***
District Judge
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for
the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
1
Lin Ni appeals the order of an immigration judge (IJ) reinstating a prior
order of removal and affirming an asylum officer’s determination that Ni did not
establish either a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected
ground, or torture, if returned to China. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing 8
C.F.R. § 208.31(g)(1)). We deny the petition.
Ni challenges the IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination. We review
this determination for substantial evidence and must “uphold the IJ’s conclusion
that [Ni] did not establish a reasonable fear of torture [or persecution] unless, based
on the evidence, ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.’” Id. (quoting Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.
2014)).
Ni contends that he suffered past persecution and that there is a reasonable
possibility he would be persecuted if returned to China because of his 2012
protests against the demolition of his house. Ni alleges that his anti-government
political opinion led to an arrest on false charges, mistreatment in custody, and
subsequent police inquiries after his release. Considering the undisputed evidence
that Ni was arrested and detained for assault after a security official fell trying to
push Ni during a protest at a government building, and that the neighbor with Ni at
the time wasn’t arrested, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that
2
officials acted against Ni because of the alleged assault rather than because of a
belief that Ni held an anti-government political opinion.
PETITION DENIED.
3
Lin Ni v. William Barr
Combined Opinion