Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JIANSHI XIE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73759.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 3, 2015.
    Melanie Meie Yang, Esquire, Law Offices of Melanie M. Yang, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
    Stuart Nickum, Trial, OIL, Chief Counsel ICE, Jennifer Paisner Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Xie's request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jianshi Xie, 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. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Xie does not contend he suffered past persecution in China, nor does he pursue the family planning claim he raised to the agency below. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). We do not consider the background information from the 2012 Human Rights Report referred to in Xie’s opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Xie failed to demonstrate he had a well-founded fear of future persecution due to his participation in a Christian house church. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir.2006) (record did not compel conclusion that house church participant had a well-founded fear of persecution).

Because Xie failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, we deny Xie’s request to remand to the BIA for further consideration of administrative closure.

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