Jinju Zhao v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 586 F. App'x 266 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINJU ZHAO, No. 12-71846
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-125-411
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jinju Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zhao’s
experiences in China, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (record
did not compel the conclusion that petitioner suffered past persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Zhao failed to
establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022
(petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-
founded fear of persecution”). We reject Zhao’s contention that the agency did not
analyze her claim sufficiently. We also reject Zhao’s pattern or practice of
persecution claim. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060-61 (9th Cir.
2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider the disfavored group claim Zhao makes
because she failed to raise it to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings
below). Thus, Zhao’s asylum claim fails.
Because Zhao failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
2 12-71846
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Zhao’s CAT
claim because Zhao failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
China. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). We lack
jurisdiction to consider any contention by Zhao regarding torture due to violation
of China’s exit laws because Zhao did not raise this to the agency. See Barron,
358 F.3d at 678.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-71846