Weibo Xie v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 17 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    WEIBO XIE,                                      No.    20-70812
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A206-334-905
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 14, 2021**
    Before:      WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Weibo Xie, 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
    relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v.
    Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
    review.
    Substantial evidence supports the determination that Xie failed to establish
    he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 
    454 F.3d 1014
    , 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and interrogation did not
    compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the
    determination that Xie did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.
    See 
    id. at 1022
     (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence
    demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, Xie’s asylum claim
    fails.
    In this case, because Xie failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he also
    failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 
    453 F.3d at 1190
    .
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Xie
    failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent
    or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Zheng v. Holder, 
    644 F.3d 829
    , 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                     20-70812