Tan Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047

Tan Go petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
The court reviews under 8 U.S.C. §1252(b) for substantial-evidence support.
King’s stabbing and placement in the trunk occurred in June 2002 during a drug-trafficking scheme involving Tan Go’s husband.
Tan Go and her husband were charged by the Philippines government with kidnapping as part of a purported legitimate prosecution.
The court finds no basis to treat the Kings’ accusations as anti-government persecution or government control by the Kings.
The CAT and due-process claims are rejected consistent with the court’s Go v. Holder reasoning (cited but not restated here).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of asylum and withholding is supported by substantial evidence	Tan Go argues the record shows pretextual prosecution.	Board found a genuine, legitimate criminal prosecution.	Denied: substantial-evidence support for denial.
Whether the Kings’ dispute implies anti-government sympathies warranting protection	Tan Go claims anti-government attribution due to conflict with the King family.	No showing that government and King family act as one; threats lacking power to coerce.	Denied: no proven anti-government persecution.
Whether CAT and due-process claims fail under existing Ninth Circuit precedent	Tan Go asserts CAT/due-process protections apply.	Claims rejected by controlling precedent.	Denied: CAT/due-process claims rejected.

Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial-evidence standard for asylum and withholding review)
Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (fear of criminal accountability does not automatically merit protection)
Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1988) (anti-government sympathies not proven by private disputes)