NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZI-JUN MA, No. 09-72587
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-300-762
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Zi-Jun Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders 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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Ma references in his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ma failed to
demonstrate a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the
BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but
compels it[.]”). Thus, Ma’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ma failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72587