Ai He v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AI HE, No. 12-70978
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-716-806
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, IKUTA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Ai He seeks review of the denial of her petition for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
He failed to exhaust her CAT claim because she did not argue it in her brief
before the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009). We
therefore lack jurisdiction to consider it. Id.Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that He’s treatment
by Chinese police did not amount to past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454
F.3d 1014, 1017–22 (9th Cir. 2006). The BIA’s determination that He failed to
show a well-founded fear of future persecution was also supported by substantial
evidence, namely the continued safety of her similarly situated family members
who remained in China. See Zhao v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir.
2008). Therefore, we deny the petition as to He’s asylum claim. Because He
failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her withholding of removal claim
necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
2