FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINGRU LIANG; WENQIAO XU, No. 13-73111
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A200-264-829
A200-264-830
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jingru Liang and Wenqiao Xu, natives and citizen of China, petition pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying Liang’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th
Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
credible, Liang’s experiences in China, considered cumulatively, did not rise to the
level of persecution. See id. at 1019-21. Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that Liang did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See id. at 1022 (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective
evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333
F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution “too speculative”).
Thus, Liang’s asylum claim fails. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018.
Because Liang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, her withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Liang’s CAT
claim because she failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or the consent or acquiesce of the government if returned to China. See
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73111