Case Name: Wenzhong LU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-24
Citations: 675 F. App'x 765
Docket Number: No. 13-73332
Parties: Wenzhong LU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 765–766

Head Matter:
Wenzhong LU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73332
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 24, 2017
. Maria Christina Flores, Attorney, Law Office of Maria Christina Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner
OIL, Marshall Tamor Golding, Esquire, 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: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
Wenzhong Lu, 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, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusions that, even if credible, Lu failed to establish past persecution on account of other resistance to China's population control policies, see He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014), and the harm Lu suffered as to his land taking claim did not rise to the level of persecution, see Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's conclusion that Lu failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution in China. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (applicant failed to present compelling objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution). Thus, Lu's asylum claim fails.
Because Lu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal claim. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lu s contentions related to his CAT claim because he did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.