Neng Lin v. Loretta E. Lynch , 616 F. App'x 277 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NENG ZHUO LIN, No. 13-72230
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-780-545
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Respondent’s motion to reinstate the briefing schedule, deemed a motion to
lift the prior stay of proceedings, is granted.
Neng Zhuo Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo due process challenges.
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Lin does not challenge the agency’s determination that, even if Lin was
credible and established past persecution, his presumption of a well-founded fear
of future persecution in China was rebutted by the passage of time and the absence
of harassment by the government since 1989. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed
waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lin did not
otherwise establish an objectively well-founded fear of future persecution in China.
See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, we deny the petition as
to Lin’s asylum claim.
Because Lin failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 13-72230
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lin’s CAT claim because he did not exhaust
it before the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
Finally, we reject Lin’s contention that the IJ denied him due process by
failing to provide a Cantonese interpreter because Lin stated at the hearing that he
was more comfortable proceeding in Mandarin and his counsel did not object
during the proceedings. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-72230