Case Name: CUONG LE QUOC NGUYEN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-15
Citations: 714 F. App'x 826
Docket Number: No. 15-73189
Parties: CUONG LE QUOC NGUYEN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: N.R. SMITH, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 714
Pages: 826–826

Head Matter:
CUONG LE QUOC NGUYEN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-73189
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 9, 2018 Portland, Oregon
Filed March 15, 2018
Amanda Ellen Gray, Parker, Butte & Lane, P.C., Portland, OR, for Petitioner
Kurt Barrett Larson, Senior Litigation Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: N.R. SMITH, CHRISTEN, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cuong Le Quoc Nguyen, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his timely motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Nguyen failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that he will be persecuted if he returns to Vietnam. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (9th Cir. 2014) ("The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law." (quotation marks and citation omitted)). First, Nguyen failed to present evidence of anti-government activities (aside from donations to an affiliated charitable organization) with the Viet Tan that would trigger the interest of the Vietnamese government beyond that which he addressed in his initial application. Second, the possibility of detention and interrogation alone does not rise to the level of persecution. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003). Although Nguyen evidenced a subjective fear of persecution, he failed to establish an objective fear of persecution by showing that the possibility of detention and interrogation would rise to the level of persecution. See Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.