Hu Zhe Jin v. Gonzales

MEMORANDUM *

An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Hu Zhe Jin’s application for asylum, and the *722 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Both the IJ and the BIA held that Jin had failed to meet his burden of proving that his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable. Jin appealed. We now affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we do not recite them here.

I.

Jin first argues that the IJ and the BIA erred on the merits of his asylum claim. He contends that his testimony at the asylum hearing constitutes evidence sufficient to support his claim of future persecution. We review the BIA’s decision under the “substantial evidence” standard, meaning that we must affirm the BIA’s ruling unless the record “not only supports [the conclusion that Jin has established his eligibility for asylum], but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 478 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (emphasis in original); see also Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000) (“Under the substantial evidence standard of review, the court of appeals must affirm when it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the…

specially concurring.

Both the IJ and the BIA concluded that Jin had failed to meet his burden of proving that his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable. I agree. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 478 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); see also Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

*725 Contrary to Jin’s argument on appeal, the record demonstrates that the BIA has “give[n] reasons for its decision[ ] showing that it has properly considered the circumstances” of Jin’s individual case. Santana-Figueroa v. INS, 644 F.2d 1354, 1357 (9th Cir.1981).