Case ID: f-appx_458/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ZHENGLIANG HE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70951.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 14, 2011.
    Anders Laird Johnson, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, Sabey Marina Abraham, Esquire, Law Offices of Vaughan De Kirby, A.P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Christina Bechak Parascandola, Trial, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Joan Estelle Smiley, Esquire, Trial, 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: LEAVY and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zhenliang He, 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, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that, even if credible, He failed to establish past persecution because his detention and physical mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1019-21 (detention, beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution by Chinese police on account of unsanctioned religious practice); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that He failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022. Accordingly, He’s asylum claim fails.

Because He failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because He failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to China. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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