Qingsheng Chai v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Chai petitions for review of the determinations of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that he failed to establish facts qualifying him for asylum and withholding of removal. We review for substantial evidence and will reverse only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999).

Assuming past persecution, the record does not compel the conclusion that Chai established a nexus between the harm he suffered and one of the statutorily protected grounds. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001). While Chai confronted Family Planning officials, he did so with the belief and making the accusation that they had taken a bribe. The BIA thus concluded that Chai was then detained and mistreated on account of this accusation, which was the only central reason for the persecution. Chai’s own testimony supports this conclusion, as he stated he was warned by the Family Planning officials not to “expose the bribery of the director.” Therefore, absent evidence compelling the conclusion that Chai was harmed based on his opposition to China’s coercive population control policy, he has not established a…