NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
XIA CHEN, No. 09-71327
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-450-750
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Xia Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. Ahmed v. Keisler, 504
F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for
review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Chen
failed to establish it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to
China. See id. at 1201.
With respect to Chen’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chen did not suffer
harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,
1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not establish past persecution where the
petitioner was arrested and detained for three days, interrogated, and struck with a
rod ten times). However, as to Chen’s future fear, substantial evidence does not
support the BIA’s nexus determination, because Chen’s testimony and supporting
affidavits establish that an imputed religious opinion was one central reason for the
police’s interest in her. See Kebede v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 808, 812 (9th Cir. 2004)
(statements by persecutor can establish nexus); Shoafera v. INS, 228 F.3d 1070,
1074-75 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecutor’s motive can be established by petitioner’s
credible testimony and witness testimony). Because the BIA erred in its nexus
determination, it did not fully consider Chen’s claim of future persecution.
2 09-71327
Accordingly, we grant the petition as to Chen’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 09-71327