Xin Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 590 F. App'x 721 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIN WANG, No. 13-71068
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-881-697
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Xin Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 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. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We review de novo claims of due process violations.
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Wang did not
show that his political opinion, or any other protected characteristic, was a “central
reason” for the harm he suffered or fears. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“a protected ground [must] represent ‘one central reason’
for an asylum applicant's persecution”). Thus, Wang’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Wang failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the
Chinese government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
We reject Wang’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by
overruling his objection to an alleged translation error, because he cannot establish
the alleged error may have affected the outcome of his proceedings. See Lata v.
2 13-71068
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (a petitioner must show prejudice to
prevail on a due process violation).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Wang’s due process contention that
the IJ abandoned her role as a neutral factfinder, because Wang did not raise this
argument in his appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not raised to the agency).
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71068