Case Name: Guo Hua WU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-26
Citations: 89 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 03-71416; Agency No. A75-252-189
Parties: Guo Hua WU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
Guo Hua WU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71416.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 26, 2004.
Arthur J. Liu, Oakland, CA, for petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Lisa A. Watts, Washington, DC, for respondent.
Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Guo Hua Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual determinations concerning a petitioner's eligibility for asylum, and must uphold them unless the evidence compels a contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.
Wu testified that he will be persecuted if he returns to China because he gave money to students who participated in the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision that Wu did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of any enumerated ground. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.