Case ID: f-appx_397/html/0391-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerjang Jack WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73220.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2010.
    Jerjang Jack Wang, Hacienda Heights, CA, pro se.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, Trial, Oil, Aviva Poc-zter, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jerjang Jack Wang, a native and citizen of Taiwan, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application 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 factual findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and de novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Wang’s contention that he suffered past persecution because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Wang failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution based on his complaints about his brother’s incarceration and revoked parole. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future harm was too speculative to compel a finding of well-founded fear). Accordingly, Wang’s asylum claim fails.

Because Wang failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Wang failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Taiwan. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir.2009).

Wang contentions that the IJ violated his due process rights by: (1) denying him the opportunity to submit additional evidence; (2) preventing him from presenting his case; and (3) rejecting his certified translations of particular evidence, all fail, because the proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.