Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0468-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YUCHAI CHEN Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent
    No. 16-4049
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 7, 2017
    Filed: July 21, 2017
    Joshua E. Bardavid, Bardavid- Law, New York, NY, for Petitioner
    Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, David H. Wetmore, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    
      Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Chinese citizen Yuchai Chen petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an-Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal based on her Christian religion. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that Chen did not establish either past persecution or that she had an objectively reasonable, well-founded fear of future persecution. See Yu An Li v. Holder, 745 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); see also Singh v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2015) (persecution is extreme concept involving torture, infliction or threat of death, or injury to one’s freedom or person, on account of protected ground); Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantial evidence standard is extremely deferential, and court will not overturn findings of fact unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach contrary findings); Singh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir. 2007) (to establish that fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable, alien must present credible, direct, and specific evidence that reasonable person in her position would fear persecution if returned to alien’s country). Thus, Chen did not establish that she qualified for asylum, see Singh, 803 F.3d at 991 (to qualify for asylum, alien must show she is unable or unwilling to return to native country due’ to persecution, or well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of protected ground); and her claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed as well, see Bracic v. Holder. 603 F.3d 1027, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard for withholding of removal is more rigorous than that for asylum). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . Chen does not seek review of her claim under the Convention Against Torture. See Wanyama v. Holder, 698 F.3d 1032, 1035 n.1 (8th Cir. 2012) (waiver of claim).