FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 11 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUAN WU PANG, No. 13-74096
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-627-709
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 6, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Chuan Wu Pang seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ ("BIA") denial of his claims for withholding of removal and relief under
the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"), as well as the BIA’s determination that
Petitioner did not suffer a due process violation. We deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner failed to
establish a clear probability of persecution if removed to China. See Bromfield v.
Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that we review factual
findings for substantial evidence). Petitioner testified that he had not suffered any
harm when he lived in China before arriving in the United States. Reports and
articles in the record state that "private, consensual same sex activities between
adults" are not unlawful in China; that the government decriminalized
homosexuality six years before the United States repealed sodomy laws in all
states; and that most people in China "acknowledge that the government has made
great improvements over the years and . . . will eventually adopt a positive stance
toward homosexuality." Similarly, the record shows that Chinese employment
regulations make it unlawful to discriminate against persons carrying infectious
diseases; that it is common practice for individuals with HIV/AIDS to receive
medical attention from specialty hospitals; and that localities have improved the
way they deal with HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment in recent years.
Although some instances of discrimination against homosexuals and individuals
with HIV/AIDS occur, the record does not compel a reversal of the BIA’s finding.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or at
2
the acquiescence of the Chinese government if removed to China. The same
evidence supporting the BIA’s findings on withholding removal also supports this
finding.
3. Lastly, Petitioner raised no credible argument that he suffered a due
process violation during his removal hearings. See Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d
773, 777 (9th Cir. 2000) ("We review de novo claims of due process violations in
deportation proceedings."). Petitioner failed to explain how a continuance would
have allowed him to establish his claims. The record shows no evidence that the
immigration judge was biased against Petitioner or failed to develop the record
fully. Rather, the immigration judge made efforts to look for alternative avenues
through which Petitioner could potentially obtain relief, such as exploring the
possibility of derivative asylum and giving Petitioner the opportunity to present
any evidence he had that showed a potential for future harm.
Petition DENIED.
3