Yanfeng Gao v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
YANFENG GAO; JINGHUA WANG, No. 13-71037
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A099-739-931
A099-739-932
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Yanfeng Gao and Jinghua Wang, natives and citizens of China, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo claims of
due process violations. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th Cir. 2011).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Petitioners concede that they did not suffer past persecution, but fear future
persecution based on Gao’s joining a Shouter’s church while in the United States.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Gao failed to establish
a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative).
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily
failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Prasad
v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995).
We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to adequately consider
their arguments on appeal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to demonstrate a due process claim). We lack jurisdiction to
consider petitioners’ assertions that the IJ exhibited bias and allowed an overly-
aggressive cross-examination, because petitioners did not raise them to the BIA.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to consider issues that have not been administratively exhausted).
2 13-71037
Finally, petitioners do not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT
relief. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71037