FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 21 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANPING ZHOU, No. 14-72885
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-872-497
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 6, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: CANBY and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,*** District
Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Anping Zhou, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying his applications for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”) pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Zhou failed to
demonstrate that he has been subject to past persecution or has a well-founded fear
of future persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A); Yan Xia Zhu v.
Mukasey, 537 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2008). In 1989, Zhou attempted to
prevent his wife’s forced abortion under China’s one-child policy. Security guards
arrested him, punching him once in the face and kicking him in the leg. He was
taken to a police station, interrogated for 20 or 30 minutes, and detained for three
days, during which he was not subjected to any mistreatment. He was then
released without conditions and returned to his job at a state-owned diesel engine
company. Twenty years later, he was arrested for helping to organize a factory
workers’ protest. At a police station he was interrogated for about an hour, and
was struck with a baton five or six times on the arms and seven or eight times on
the back. He was detained for three days without further mistreatment, and upon
2
release he treated his bruises without medical assistance. He was required to report
to the police station weekly and not leave his residential district. He was fired
from his job at the diesel engine company, and found brief employment elsewhere
before leaving for the United States. Zhou’s two isolated instances of mistreatment
separated by twenty years do not compel a conclusion contrary to that of the
immigration judge and the BIA that Zhou had not suffered past persecution. See
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1159 (9th Cir. 2009) (providing that persecution is “an
extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2. In addition, Zhou failed to present compelling evidence of an
“objectively reasonable,” well-founded fear of future persecution. Ahmed v.
Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Family planning officials did not take a continued interest in Zhou after
he was arrested for resisting his wife’s forced abortion. See Yanming Xiong v.
Lynch, 638 Fed. App’x 626, 628 (9th Cir. 2016). Further, a letter from Zhou’s
wife, which states that local authorities in China inquired into his whereabouts
after he left the country and said that he should give himself up, is not enough to
compel a finding that there is a “reasonable possibility” that Zhou would be
3
persecuted if he is deported to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i)(B); see also Gu
v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d at 1022.
3. Zhou exhausted administrative remedies when he sought reversal of the
immigration judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and
protection under CAT in his BIA appeal brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Zhang v.
Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Zhou does not establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution, he fails to qualify for withholding of
removal, which requires a “higher burden of proof.” Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241,
1244 (9th Cir. 2000). Zhou is not entitled to CAT relief because he has not shown
that “it is more likely than not” that he would be tortured if he is removed to China.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir.
2003).
PETITION DENIED.
4