Xiaoguang Yu v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
XIAOGUANG YU, No. 12-70472
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-912-233
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Xiaoguang Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
Even if Yu was credible, the record does not compel the conclusion that his
experiences in China rose to the level of past persecution. See Gormley v.
Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2004); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,
1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and interrogation did not compel
finding of past persecution). The record does not support Yu’s contention that the
IJ ignored some of his past experiences. Further, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Yu failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution in China. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000)
(continued presence of applicant in home country undermined fear); see also Lin v.
Holder, 610 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“Ordinary
prosecution . . . is not persecution ‘on account of’ a protected ground.”).
Consequently, Yu’s asylum claim fails.
Because Yu 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).
2 12-70472
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Yu’s CAT
claim because Yu failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in China. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70472