FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAOQIONG CHEN, No. 08-72415
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-467-413
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Daoqiong Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief 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 for substantial evidence factual findings. INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992). We deny the petition for
review.
Chen does not contest the IJ’s finding that he failed to establish past
persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not supported by argument are deemed waived). Substantial evidence
supports the IJ’s finding that Chen failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution because Chen did not demonstrate that, even if he were to be
questioned by the police, he would suffer harm that rises to the level of
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-22 (9th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Chen’s asylum claim fails.
Because Chen failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows
that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because
Chen failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to
China. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72415