Quoc Tran v. Loretta E. Lynch

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QUOC PHAM ANH TRAN, No. 14-70040
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-694-753
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Quoc Pham Anh Tran, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
credible, Tran’s experiences in Vietnam did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Prasad v.
INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could
have found this incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe
that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Tran failed to
demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in Vietnam. See
Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the petitioner
failed to make a compelling showing of the objective component). Thus, Tran’s
asylum claim fails.
Because Tran failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Tran’s
2 14-70040
CAT claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Vietnam. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-70040