Case Name: JINYI YANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-20
Citations: 604 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 13-71151
Parties: JINYI YANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 593–594

Head Matter:
JINYI YANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-71151.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 20, 2015.
David Z. Su, Esquire, Law Offices of David Z. Su, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
Gerald Alexander, Trial, Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Esquire, Trial, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, 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
The government's motion to lift the stay of proceedings is granted.
Jinyi Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' 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 factual findings. Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
Yang's only challenge to the agency's denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims is his contention that he suffered past persecution on account of his "other resistance" to China's family planning policies. Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that Yang did not show that he engaged in "other resistance." See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.2014) (record did not compel finding of "other resistance" where petitioner did not show "overt and persistent defiance") (internal quotations and citation omitted). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Yang's asylum and withholding of removal claims. See id. at 794.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.