Yanfang Zhuang v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANFANG ZHUANG, No. 15-72652
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-412-466
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Yanfang Zhuang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
*
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).
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Zhuang does not challenge the agency’s determination that she failed to
establish past harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Zhuang did not establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner
failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded
fear of persecution”); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.
2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Zhuang’s asylum
claim fails.
Because Zhuang failed, for purposes of asylum, to establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution, she necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard
required for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (recognizing
that the withholding of removal requirement to show a “clear probability” of
persecution is “more stringent than the well-founded fear standard governing
asylum.”).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Zhuang failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
2
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3