NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUOXIONG LIN, No. 13-72120
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-291-470
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The stay of proceedings in this case expired on May 7, 2015. Thus,
respondent’s request to lift the stay (Docket Entry No. 25) is denied as
unnecessary.
Guoxiong Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
*
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).
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lin’s
experiences in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS,
333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that persecution is “an extreme
concept”); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (evidence did
not compel the finding that petitioner demonstrated past persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Lin failed to demonstrate a well-
founded fear of future persecution in China. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (petitioner
failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded
fear of persecution”). We reject Lin’s contention that the BIA failed to consider
evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000)
(petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA considered the
evidence). Thus, Lin’s asylum claim fails.
Because Lin failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it
necessarily follows that he failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for
2 13-72120
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72120