N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W EI W ANG, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-73578 Age n c y No. A088-558-337 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 10, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, PAEZ, a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s. W e i W ang, a

nat ive and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA)’ s orde r dism issing his a p pe a l of a n im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic at ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m o va l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e de ny the pe tition. 

# FIL ED AUG 01 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. The B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t W ang fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution on a c c ount of politic a l opinion, me m be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group, or re ligion. The

prim ary ha rm W a ng a lle g e s is theforc e d a

b ortion a nd ste riliz a tion to whic h his wife wa s subje c te d, with c onse que nt im pa c t on him . The B IA c orre c tly

re c o gniz e d tha

t suc h ha rm c ould not a lone e s ta

blish tha t W ang wa s e ntitle d to a sy lum . Se e J

iang v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 1086, 1095 (9th C ir. 2010); Matte r of J -S- , 24 I. & N. De c . 520, 534–35 (Att’ y Ge n. 2008). TheB IA did re c o gniz e tha

t W an g m ay have be e n

e l igible for a sy lum

if his wife ha d be e n ta rge te d to punish him , but c orre c tly de te rm i ne d tha

t W ang ne ve r m a de suc h a n a lle gation. Nor did the B IA e rr in c o nc luding tha t W ang did not dem onstra te a we llfounde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Afte r his wife wa s forc i bly ste riliz e d, he suffe re d no punishme nt; he subse que ntly re c e i ve d a

n im p orta nt position a

t a gove rnm e nt-run unive rsity . His wife c ontinue s to livein C hina without further inc i de nt. The re c o rd e v i de nc e of c ountry c onditions e sta

b l ishe s no pa

tte rn or pra c tic e of pe rse c ution of a group of pe rsons simila rly situa t e d to W ang, na

m e ly m e n whose spouse s ha

ve suffe re d forc e d a

bortions or steriliz ations. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). The B IA the re fore did not e rr in re je c ting W ang’ s a s y lum

a pplic ation.2. B e c a use W ang fa ile d to qua lify for a sy lum , he ne c e ssa

rily fa i le d to satisfy the m ore stringe nt sta

nda rd for withholding of rem ova l. Alv are z–Santos v . IN S , 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th C ir.2003). 3. For sim i la

r re a s ons tha

t the B IA did not e rr in de t e rm i ning tha t W ang ha d not e sta blishe d a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution, substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the

B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t it wa s not “ m ore like ly

tha n not” tha t W a ng would be torture d if he we re re m ove d to C hina . Se e 8 C . F.R . § 1208. 16(c )(2). DE NIE D.