FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 01 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEI WANG, No. 11-73578
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-558-337
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 10, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Wei Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA)’s order dismissing his appeal of an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. The BIA did not err in concluding that Wang failed to establish past
persecution on account of political opinion, membership in a particular social
group, or religion. The primary harm Wang alleges is the forced abortion and
sterilization to which his wife was subjected, with consequent impact on him. The
BIA correctly recognized that such harm could not alone establish that Wang was
entitled to asylum. See Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010);
Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520, 534–35 (Att’y Gen. 2008). The BIA did
recognize that Wang may have been eligible for asylum if his wife had been
targeted to punish him, but correctly determined that Wang never made such an
allegation.
Nor did the BIA err in concluding that Wang did not demonstrate a well-
founded fear of future persecution. After his wife was forcibly sterilized, he
suffered no punishment; he subsequently received an important position at a
government-run university. His wife continues to live in China without further
incident. The record evidence of country conditions establishes no pattern or
practice of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to Wang, namely
men whose spouses have suffered forced abortions or sterilizations. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
The BIA therefore did not err in rejecting Wang’s asylum application.
2. Because Wang failed to qualify for asylum, he necessarily failed to
satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Alvarez–Santos v.
INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).
3. For similar reasons that the BIA did not err in determining that Wang had
not established a well-founded fear of future persecution, substantial evidence also
supports the BIA’s conclusion that it was not “more likely than not” that Wang
would be tortured if he were removed to China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208. 16(c)(2).
DENIED.