FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNWEI WU, No. 10-73499
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-778-545
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 4, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District
Judge.**
Junwei Wu petitions for review of the determinations of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) that he failed to establish asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
substantial evidence and will reverse only if the record compels a contrary
conclusion. Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010).
Assuming that Wu engaged in other resistance to China’s “one couple, one
child” policy, the record does not compel the conclusion that Wu suffered past
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his
resistance. See Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2004). Although his
wife’s forced abortion serves as some proof that he suffered past persecution, that
alone is not sufficient to establish past persecution. Jiang, 611 F.3d at 1095-96. To
further support his claim, Wu argues that he suffered past persecution when the
director of the local birth planning office threatened to have him sterilized if he ever
again attempted to have another child with his wife. We have held that “repeated and
especially menacing death threats can constitute a primary part of a past persecution
claim, particularly where those threats are combined with confrontation or other
mistreatment.” Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). By his own
admission, however, Wu did not receive “repeated and especially menacing death
threats.” Rather, he was threatened with sterilization only once.
Wu further argues that he suffered past persecution because his wife was fired
from her job for attempting to have a second child and that his wife’s unemployment
caused financial hardship for his family. Nevertheless, Wu failed to specifically raise
2
this issue in his appeal before the BIA and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review it.
Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2012).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Wu does not have
a well-founded fear of future persecution. Wu testified at his removal proceeding that
he wants to have more children, but fears that he will be sterilized by birth planning
authorities should his wife become pregnant again. Wu’s fear, however, is too
speculative to qualify as objectively reasonable. See Nagoulko v. I.N.S., 333 F.3d
1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).
The BIA correctly concluded that Wu’s failure to establish a well-founded fear
of persecution forecloses eligibility under the more demanding standard of eligibility
for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.
2006). Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Wu failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if removed to
China. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3