Jiansheng Cao v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 467 F. App'x 649 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 26 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JIANSHENG CAO,                                   No. 09-73011
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A099-398-448
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted January 17, 2012 **
    Before:        LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Jiansheng Cao, 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
    protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
    *
    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).
    governed by under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for substantial evidence the
    agency’s factual findings and review de novo its legal conclusions. Santos-Lemus
    v. Mukasey, 
    542 F.3d 738
    , 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in
    part the petition for review.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that even if
    credible, Cao did not establish that the Chinese police targeted him on account of a
    protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 
    555 F.3d 734
    , 740-41 (9th Cir.
    2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central
    reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
    The agency determined that Cao waived his withholding of removal and
    CAT claims by failing to meaningfully challenge them. Cao does not challenge
    this determination.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    09-73011
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-73011

Citation Numbers: 467 F. App'x 649

Judges: Callahan, Leavy, Tallman

Filed Date: 1/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023