FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HANG CHEN, No. 08-73717
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-951-879
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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
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 questions of law and we review for
substantial evidence factual findings. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chen failed to
establish that the incidents of repeated questioning by police about his mother’s
whereabouts, the threat of arrest, or nearly being hit by a police officer, rise to the
level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.
2003); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without
more, generally do not constitute past persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Chen failed to
establish that his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable. See
Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future harm too speculative to be basis
for fear of future persecution). We reject Chen’s contention that his situation is
analogous to the petitioner in Zhou v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 867-69 (9th Cir.
2006), who submitted more testimonial and documentary evidence to support the
objective basis of his fear of future persecution. Accordingly, Chen’s asylum
claim fails.
2
Because Chen failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, in his opening brief, Chen does not make any argument challenging
the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1183 (CAT claim
waived where petitioner failed to advance argument in support of it).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3