Case ID: f-appx_642/html/0787-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

XIAO GUANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70140.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 21, 2016.
    Xiao Guang Chen, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
    Tim Ramnitz, Trial, OIL, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xiao Guang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny petition for review.

Chen fears he will be persecuted based on his resistance to and violation of China’s population control policies. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chen failed to establish his fear of future persecution in China is objectively reasonable. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir.2006) (concluding petitioner failed to present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution). We reject Chen’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence. Thus, we deny the petition as to Chen’s asylum claim.

Because Chen failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

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