Jiaquan Wu v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIAQUAN WU, No. 11-73040
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-131-289
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 5, 2015**
Pasadena California
Before: PREGERSON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and CARR,*** Senior District
Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Jiaquan Wu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal. We affirm.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Wu failed to
demonstrate that he has been subject to past persecution or has a well-founded fear
of future persecution, which he must do in order to be granted asylum. Chinese
government officials physically harmed Wu on only one occasion, in 1990, for his
resistance to China’s family planning policies. This one incident is likely
insufficient to rise to the level of past persecution. See, e.g., Gu v. Gonzales, 454
F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.
1995). Similarly, Wu did not suffer substantial economic deprivation as a result of
his run-in with authorities: five years after the incident, Wu was self-employed and
earning $85,000 USD annually. Reversal is not warranted on the grounds that the
BIA found Wu’s testimony lacked credibility because, in reviewing the IJ’s
decision, the BIA assumed credibility. Barraza Rivera v. INS, 913 F.2d 1443,
1449-50 (9th Cir. 1990).
Wu’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution also fails: it
is unlikely his middle-aged wife, who has an IUD, will become pregnant again; his
resistance to Chinese family planning officials occurred more than twenty years
ago; and China does not have a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly-situated
Christians.
2. The BIA did not err in denying Wu’s application for withholding of
removal. Because Wu failed to meet the “well-founded fear” of persecution
standard required to obtain asylum, he cannot meet the more stringent “clear
probability” standard necessary for withholding of removal eligibility. Ghaly v.
INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 925
F.2d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 1991)).
AFFIRM.