Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0272-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

REN WU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71817
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 24, 2016
    
      David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z Su, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Evan P. Schultz, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ren Wu, 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 the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Wu claims past persecution and fear of future persecution on account of his resistance to China’s population control policies. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that Wu failed to establish past persecution on account of his “other resistance” to China’s population control policy, see He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014), and failed to establish his fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable, see id. Thus we deny the petition as to Wu’s asylum claim.

Wu references withholding of removal in the conclusion of his opening brief, but does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived this claim on appeal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).

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