Case ID: f-appx_108/html/0521-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pengtao ZOU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70419.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 31, 2004.
    William Kiang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GOODWIN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pengtao Zou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the streamlined decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying petitioner’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.

Even assuming that Zou’s testimony was credible, upon a review of the entire record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings of no past persecution and that Zou failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. While Zou’s arguments to the contrary carry some force, “the record does not compel us to reach a conclusion different from the IJ’s.” See Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit, except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We do not recite the facts and prior proceedings with which the parties are familiar.