FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 1 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QING XUE YUAN, No. 11-72935
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-676-746
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Qing Xue Yuan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for substantial evidence factual findings. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079,
1083 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Yuan failed to establish
past persecution on account of his resistance to a coercive population control
policy. See Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (“an applicant
must provide evidence of resistance in addition to the spouse’s forced abortion or
sterilization” to be eligible for asylum ). Substantial evidence also supports the
BIA’s finding that Yuan did not demonstrate a well-founded future fear of forced
sterilization or persecution for resistance to China’s coercive population control
policy. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of
future persecution was too speculative).
With respect to Yuan’s claim based on his assistance to a North Korean
refugee relative, the BIA found Yuan did not submit corroborating evidence and
did not establish that such evidence was not reasonably obtainable. We lack
jurisdiction to consider Yuan’s unexhausted contention that the IJ denied him a full
and fair opportunity to present his claim by not giving him an adequate opportunity
to explain the lack of corroborating evidence. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Yuan does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s
determination.
2 11-72935
Thus, Yuan’s asylum claim fails.
Finally, Yuan does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he failed to appeal
the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-72935