Lizhong Cui v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 485 F. App'x 167 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            OCT 12 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LIZHONG CUI,                                     No. 10-70556
    Petitioner,                       Agency Nos. A098-467-501
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,            MEMORANDUM *
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted October 9, 2012 **
    Before:        RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Lizhong Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
    of Immigration Appeals’ 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 8
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de
    novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 
    558 F.3d 1049
    , 1056 (9th Cir.
    2009). We deny the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Cui’s single instance
    of arrest, detention, and interrogation did not rise to the level of past persecution.
    See Gu v. Gonzales, 
    454 F.3d 1014
    , 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a
    single detention, beating, and interrogation did not compel a finding of past
    persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Cui
    failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future harm. See 
    id. at 1022
    (determining that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
    persecution where he did not present sufficient objective evidence that authorities
    had a continued interest in him); see also Halim v. Holder, 
    590 F.3d 971
    , 975 (9th
    Cir. 2009) (noting that petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for
    asylum). Accordingly, Cui’s asylum claim fails.
    Because Cui has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot
    meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
    Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
    2                                     10-70556
    Finally, Cui did not challenge the agency’s findings regarding CAT relief.
    See Rizk v. Holder, 
    629 F.3d 1083
    , 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner waived
    CAT claim when he failed to raise it in his brief).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    3                                10-70556