eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-09

Liang Zhang v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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
LIANG ZHANG,                                    No.    17-70476
Petitioner,                     Agency No. A201-199-516
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.
Liang Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
*
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).
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 Zhang 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 Zhang 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, Zhang’s asylum claim fails.
We do not reach Zhang’s contentions regarding the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder,
    657 F.3d 820
    , 829 (9th Cir.
2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).
As stated in the court’s March 17, 2017 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2                                       17-70476