Case ID: f-appx_89/html/0116-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Guo Hua WU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71416.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 26, 2004.
    Arthur J. Liu, Oakland, CA, for petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Lisa A. Watts, Washington, DC, for respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guo Hua Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual determinations concerning a petitioner’s eligibility for asylum, and must uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

Wu testified that he will be persecuted if he returns to China because he gave money to students who participated in the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that Wu did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of any enumerated ground. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1995).

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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.