Zi-Jun Ma v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 30 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ZI-JUN MA,                                       No.   09-72587
    Petitioner,                      Agency No. A095-300-762
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted October 23, 2017**
    Before:      McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Zi-Jun Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
    removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
    agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 1066
    , 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
    We deny the petition for review.
    We do not consider the materials Ma references in his opening brief that are
    not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 
    79 F.3d 955
    , 963-64 (9th
    Cir. 1996) (en banc).
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ma failed to
    demonstrate a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected
    ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the
    BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but
    compels it[.]”). Thus, Ma’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
    Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
    Ma failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with
    the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See Aden v. Holder, 
    589 F.3d 1040
    , 1047 (2009).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   09-72587
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-72587

Judges: McKeown, Watford, Friedland

Filed Date: 10/30/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024