Case Name: BINGLONG YU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-19
Citations: 511 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: No. 11-72801
Parties: BINGLONG YU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 674–675

Head Matter:
BINGLONG YU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72801.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 19, 2013.
Michael A. Rohr, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael A. Rohr, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Mona Maria Yousif, Trial, 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: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Binglong Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a 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, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Yu fears returning to China because he mailed a book about Falun Gong from the United States to his wife in China in 2004, and Chinese officials confiscated the book and issued a summons for him. Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Yu failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See id. at 1018 (possibility of future persecution is too speculative). Consequently, his asylum claim fails.
Because Yu faded to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.