FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAO WU, No. 11-70906
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-049-161
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 3, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges and LEFKOW,*** District
Judge.
Petitioner Tao Wu seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) to deny his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
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 Honorable Joan Lefkow, District Judge for the Northern District
of Illinois, sitting by designation.
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the parties are
familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those
facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We deny Wu’s petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supported the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. The Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA correctly cited
inconsistencies in Wu’s testimony, including statements concerning his
unemployment benefits after being terminated from the Tianjin Electrical
Company and explanations for why his wife had not been arrested or detained by
the Chinese government.
Additionally, Wu’s past mistreatment by the Chinese police did not
constitute “persecution,” which we define as “‘the infliction of suffering or harm
upon those who differ (in race, religion or political opinion) in a way regarded as
offensive.’” Khup v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Fisher v.
INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir. 1996)). Although the police detained Wu for
around fifteen minutes and beat him, the record does not compel the conclusion
that this attack amounted to past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,
1020 (9th Cir. 2006). Wu also has not shown a well-founded fear of future
persecution based on his political beliefs should he return to China.
2
Since Wu does not carry his burden to show persecution for asylum
purposes, he cannot meet the more stringent withholding of removal and CAT
standards. See Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 2005); Nuru v.
Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1224-25 (9th Cir. 2005).
DENIED.
3