NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
XIN NING HE, No. 10-72130
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-322-601
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Xin Ning He petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
*
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).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that He did not establish
past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his
resistance to China’s family-planning policies. See Nai Yuan Jiang v. Holder, 611
F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2010); Matter of J-S-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 520, 542 (A.G.
2008). He presented no evidence of persecution other than his wife’s forced
sterilization, which does not on its own compel the conclusion that He suffered
past persecution. Ming Xin He v. Holder, No. 09-73516, 2014 WL 1491882, at *3
(9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2014).
Nor does the record compel the conclusion that He demonstrated a well-
founded fear of future persecution when he lived in China for almost ten years after
his wife’s forced sterilization without experiencing any persecution. See
Rodriguez-Rivera v. U.S. Dep’t of Immigration & Naturalization, 848 F.2d 998,
1006 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (upholding denial of asylum where petitioner
“continued to live undisturbed” in his home country for two months). Moreover,
He testified that his wife, who stayed in China after he left, has not suffered any
further harm. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting “[a]n
applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when
similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without
incident”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v.
2
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Because He did not
establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily did not meet the “heavier burden
of proof” required for withholding of removal. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
In his brief, He does not challenge the BIA’s decision that he did not show a
well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his illegal entry into the
United States. He also does not challenge the BIA’s decision that he is not eligible
for CAT relief. Therefore, He has waived appeal on those issues. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3