Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

YANAN FANG, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 18-73043

Decided: October 22, 2019

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Maria Christina Flores, Attorney, Law Office of Maria Christina Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent


Yanan Fang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Fang failed to establish that any harm he suffered or fears in China was or would be on account of his political opinion. See Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing three-factor test set forth by Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 532-33 (BIA 2011) for determining whether retaliation for whistleblowing constitutes persecution on account of political opinion); Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution based on a protected ground). Thus, Fang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Fang failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

To the extent Fang contends that the IJ was biased, we reject this contention as without merit.


Copied to clipboard