Yingqiang Wang v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YINGQIANG WANG, No. 16-71116
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-551-615
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Yingqiang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Wang failed
to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and
interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that Wang did not establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022 (petitioner failed to present
“compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of
persecution”). Thus, Wang’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed
to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Wang 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).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Wang’s remaining contentions
regarding his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004)
(courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
2 16-71116
As stated in the court’s July 26, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-71116