Yunchuan Chou v. Loretta E. Lynch

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUNCHUAN CHOU, No. 14-71578
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-700-346
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Yunchuan Chou, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and we review de
novo legal questions. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009).
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Chou’s argument that the IJ discredited
facts in his asylum application because he did not raise this claim to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction
to review claims not presented to the agency).
Chou claims past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution
based on his participation in a Christian house church. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Chou failed to establish that he suffered harm
that rose to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21
(9th Cir. 2006) (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s three-day
detention, interrogation, and beating with a rod rose to the level of persecution).
We reject Chou’s contention that the agency did not consider the economic harm
he suffered. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Chou failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022;
see also Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he IJ
and the BIA are entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including a
2 14-71578
State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated
that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”). We reject Chou’s
contention that the BIA failed to address his arguments on appeal. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim). Thus, we deny Chou’s petition as to his asylum claim.
Because Chou failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-71578