FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIN LIN, a.k.a. Li Wei Huang, No. 07-73177
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-390-283
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Lin Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the agency’s legal determinations and
we review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the threats Lin
received and the property damage her family suffered did not establish past
persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats
do not constitute persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Lin reasonably could relocate within China, particularly given that
prior to her arrival in the United States, she lived without any problems in
Shanghai for an extended period of time with her two children. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, Lin’s asylum claim fails.
Because Lin did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did
not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Lin is not
eligible for CAT relief because she failed to show that it is more likely than not
2 07-73177
that she would be tortured if removed to China. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-
68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-73177