Xiaopin Zen v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAOPIN ZEN, a.k.a. Xiaoping Zeng, No. 12-74044
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-708-433
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Xiaopin Zen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for
review.
Zen contends she established an individualized risk of persecution based on
the government’s practice of suppressing dissent and because Chinese authorities
personally targeted her due to her involvement in a protest.
We do not consider the new evidence Zen references in her opening and
reply briefs. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s
review is limited to the administrative record). Nor do we consider the new
contentions Zen raises in her reply brief regarding Chinese permit laws and
regulations. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)
(“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”).
Even if Zen showed the government was interested in her, the record does
not compel the conclusion that any harm she might face would rise to the level of
persecution. See Lin v. Holder. 610 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010); cf. Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182-84 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Zen’s asylum
claim fails.
Finally, Zen does not make any arguments regarding the BIA’s denial of her
claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,
2 12-74044
94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are
abandoned). Thus, we deny the petition as to these claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-74044