Enguang Wang v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ENGUANG WANG, No. 14-72873
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-802-247
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Enguang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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). Thus, we deny Wang’s
request for oral argument.
the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008), and we review de novo questions of law, Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086,
1091 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if credible,
Wang failed to establish he was persecuted for engaging in “other resistance” to
China’s family planning policy. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.
2014) (petitioner’s actions “did not display the overt and persistent defiance
required for a showing of other resistance”) (internal quotations and citation
omitted). We reject Wang’s contentions that the BIA misinterpreted or
misapplied the statute, or that it analyzed his claim improperly. See Jiang, 611
F.3d at 1091-94. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion
that Wang did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See He,
749 F.3d at 796; see also Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006)
(petitioner did not “present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-
founded fear of persecution.”). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
Because Wang did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-72873