Yi Su v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YI SU, No. 13-72480
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-797-692
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., 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.
On August 5, 2015, the court granted respondent’s unopposed motion to
hold proceedings in abeyance for an additional 90 days. The stay of proceedings
expired on November 3, 2015. Thus, respondent’s motion to lift the stay (Docket
Entry No. 23) is denied as moot.
*
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).
Yi Su, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
credible, the totality of circumstances, including Su’s wife’s abortion in China, did
not rise to the level of persecution. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.
2014); see also Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006) (evidence did
not compel finding of past persecution). The record does not support Su’s
contention that the BIA did not consider the totality of circumstances in addressing
his claim. Because Su failed to establish past persecution, he does not have a
rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1). Su does not otherwise contend he has a well-founded fear of
persecution if returned to China. See He, 749 F.3d at 796. Thus, Su’s asylum
claim fails.
2 13-72480
Finally, because Su failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72480