FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHAO WANG, No. 11-73160
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-292-585
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Chao Wang, 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 relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for
review.
Wang testified he was arrested while he was praying with friends, hit and
kicked for two minutes, detained for eight days, and required to report to the police
weekly. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the mistreatment
Wang suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution. See id. at 1019-21.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Wang failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, even considering his
experience coupled with the country reports. See Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 897
(9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner needs to adduce “credible, direct, and specific evidence
in the record of facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution.”).
Accordingly, Wang’s asylum claim fails.
Because Wang 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 also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Wang failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured
2 11-73160
by or with the acquiescence of the government of China. See Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73160