FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNFA LI, No. 12-73084
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-574-751
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Junfa Li, 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we deny the petition for review.
Relying on evidence that Li lived safely in other parts of China for 20 years
before coming to the United States, the agency found that even if Li suffered past
persecution his presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was
rebutted because Li could reasonably relocate to another part of China. Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding. See Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061,
1070 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption is overcome where a preponderance of the
evidence shows “that the applicant can reasonably relocate internally to an area of
safety”); Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 999 (a period of relocation without
harm is “highly relevant”).
Because Li did not demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did
not satisfy the more stringent 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 Li failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
2 12-73084
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73084