Xiangzhe Cui v. Holder

MEMORANDUM **

Xiangzhe Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review.

The BIA adopted and affirmed the decision of the IJ. Accordingly, we “review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Hoque v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2004). “The decision that an alien *713 has not established eligibility for asylum ... is reviewed for substantial evidence.” Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). Because the IJ found Cui to be credible, we accept his testimony as true. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2005).

In order to be eligible for asylum, an applicant must establish that he was persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one or more of the five grounds enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A). See INS v. Elias-Zaca rias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). “Our caselaw…

dissenting:

Cui credibly testified that he gave humanitarian assistance to five North Koreans because his “conscience would not allow [him] to not help these people who were in such dire need[ ].” As a result, he was arrested, beaten by the local Chinese police as they interrogated him, detained for a week in a filthy cell with seven other men who brutally beat him because he was not a “real criminal,” hospitalized for over a month, and fired from his job. Cui suffered such treatment on account of his political opinion. The BIA’s conclusion that Cui was subject to “prosecution for an act deemed criminal in China” is wrong as a matter of law. See Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1108-11 (9th Cir.2009).

Moreover, the IJ’s finding that “the authorities only slapped him” is not supported by substantial evidence, given that the IJ found that Cui testified credibly. Cui did not suffer “merely an isolated incident” of abuse, Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1581 (9th Cir.1986), and his detention was far more severe than the “four to six hours” of detention endured by the petitioner in Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995). The “totality of the circumstances” thus compels…