FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERFU WU, No. 12-73119
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-038-882
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Erfu Wu, a native and citizen China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Wu testified he was arrested at a house church service, detained for five
days, and monitored by village cadres, but that he was not harmed and continued to
attend the house church until he left China. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that these incidents did not rise to the level of persecution.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (no past persecution
although member of Christian house church was arrested and detained for three
days, interrogated, beaten with a rod, and required to report to the police). Thus,
contrary to Wu’s contention, he is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded
future fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Wu
failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See id. (fear of future harm
too speculative). Accordingly, Wu’s asylum claim fails.
Because Wu has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-73119