Xiuying Li v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 585 F. App'x 734 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIUYING LI, No. 13-70341
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-458-331
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Xiuying Li, 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 her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Li established changed
circumstances to excuse her untimely filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.4(a)(4); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam). We lack jurisdiction to consider arguments regarding changed
circumstances that Li did not raise to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, we reject Li’s contention that the agency’s
analysis of changed circumstances is contrary to the intent of the law. Thus, Li’s
asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Li failed to establish it is
more likely than not that she would suffer mistreatment constituting persecution if
returned to China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2); Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006) (to qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must
show a clear probability of future persecution). Thus, Li’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-70341