NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONGQING WANG, No. 14-73409
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-207-106
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Rongqing Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
We do not consider new evidence that was not part of the record before the
agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963–64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The record does not compel the conclusion that the mistreatment Wang
suffered in China, even if credible, rose to the level of past persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding [the court] must find
that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Wang did not establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1021-22. Thus, we
deny the petition as to Wang’s asylum claim.
Because Wang did not establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Wang failed to establish that he would more likely than not be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of a government official if returned to China.
2 14-73409
See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73409