Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0736-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jianxin LI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-75003.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 14, 2010.
    Jisheng Li, Esquire, Law Office of Jish-eng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    AGU-District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Director, Hagatna, GU, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jianxin Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum because Li’s brief detention and mistreatment at the hands of the Chinese police did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006). Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Li has not established a well-founded fear of persecution if he returns to China. See id. at 1021-22. Accordingly, Li’s asylum claim fails.

Because Li failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

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