Chengxin Miao v. Loretta E. Lynch , 646 F. App'x 517 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHENGXIN MIAO, No. 13-74088
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-291-973
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Chengxin Miao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order 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”). Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Miao failed to
establish past persecution on account of his resistance to China’s coercive
population control policy. See Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir.
2010) (petitioner must provide evidence of resistance in addition to the harm to the
spouse in order to be eligible for asylum). As to Miao’s claim related to the
government taking of his property, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s
finding that Miao has not shown that his political opinion, actual or imputed, was
at least one central reason for the harm he experienced or fears if returned to
China. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the
REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for
an asylum applicant’s persecution”). The court lacks jurisdiction to consider
Miao’s contention related to a particular social group of “landowners whose
property has been forcibly taken,” because he did not raise this before the IJ. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over
legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below). Thus, Miao’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
2 13-74088
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Miao failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government of China if returned. See Silaya,
524 F.3d at 1073.
Finally, our review is limited to the administrative record, so we do not
consider materials referenced in the opening brief that were not part of the record
before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F. 3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-74088