FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUANGWEI SUN, No. 08-73348
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-537-657
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Guangwei Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that, even if credible,
Sun failed to establish past persecution because her detention and physical
mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1019-21 (detention,
beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution by Chinese
police on account of unsanctioned religious practice). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that Sun failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution. See id. at 1022. Accordingly, Sun’s asylum claim fails.
Because Sun did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her claim
for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Sun failed to show it is more likely than not she 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 08-73348