NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LI CHEN,
Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 17

- 70385
Agency No. A201

- 189

- 651

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 8, 2022 * * Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Li Chen , a native and citizen of China, seeks review of th e order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denie d his applications for asylum , withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here except

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 12 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

a s necessary to provide context for our ruling. We review legal questions de novo
and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Aden v. Wilkinson , 989 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir. 2021). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252
and deny the petition for review.
The agency rejected Chen’s asylum claim for several reasons: 1) Chen was

not credible because of his vague and inconsistent testimony ; 2) Chen established
no past persecution because his claimed treatment by Chinese law enforcement was
insufficiently severe ; a nd 3) Chen’s fear of future persecution was not objectively

reasonable , in part because no evidence establishes that his friend Mr. Shen , who
allegedly was with him when they were detained and beaten after being foun d with
a car full of books about Christianity , has suffered any further harm by Chinese law

enforcement

. Substantial evidence support s each of these determinations.
As to credibility, the agency properly considered the “level of detail of
[Chen’s] testi mony to assess [his] credibility

. ” Ling Huang v. Holder , 744 F.3d
1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th
Cir. 2010)). H ere, Chen’s testimony was “not so thorough and comprehensive as to
compel” the finding that the agency erred in finding him not credible

. Id. As to past
persecution, w e have previously denied a petition for review in similar

circumstances. See Gu v. Gonzales , 454 F.3d 1014, 1017, 1018, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006)
(denying a petition for review w here the BIA found no past persecution when the3

petitioner was “detained at a police station for three days” and “beaten ” “with a rod
approximately ten times,” but “required no medical treatment”)

. A s to future
persecution, no evidence establishes that Sh en has suffered any further harm by

Chinese law enforcement. W e have previously explained that when a “similarly
situated” person resides in the “alleged zone of danger” without suffering harm, it
supports the BIA ’s finding that there is not a well

- founde d fear of future persecution.

Aruta v. INS , 80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir.1996)

. Because we affirm the agency’s determination that Chen failed to establish
eligibility for asylum, we also affirm the denial of Chen’s application for
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Last, to be eligible for CAT relief, Chen must show that he will , more likely

than not , be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public off icial if removed
to his native country. See Xochihua

- Jaimes v. Barr , 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir.
2020). Substantial evidence supports the agency ’s ruling that Chen did not establish
eligibility for CAT relief.

Petition for review DENIED

.