Case Name: MIN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-30
Citations: 601 F. App'x 543
Docket Number: No. 13-72630
Parties: MIN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 601
Pages: 543–543

Head Matter:
MIN CHEN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72630.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2015.
Filed April 30, 2015.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Michael Christopher Heyse, 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: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, 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
Min Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") 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 the agency's factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that, even if Chen were credible, his experiences in China, considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.2014) (applicant must show "substantial evidence of further persecution" apart from spouse's forced abortion). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's finding that Chen failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in China. See id. Thus, Chen's asylum claim fails.
Because Chen failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.