Junhui Yu v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNHUI YU, No. 15-73423
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-718-863
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Junhui Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
2020). We deny the petition for review.
Yu does not raise, and therefore waives, any challenge to the BIA’s
determination that he did not experience past persecution. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Yu failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner
failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded
fear of persecution”). To the extent Yu argues he is a member of a disfavored
group or faces a pattern or practice of persecution, these claims are unsupported by
the record. Thus, Yu’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Yu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Yu’s remaining contentions
regarding the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
2 15-73423
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Yu 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 Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73423