FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 15 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CUONG LE QUOC NGUYEN, No. 15-73189
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-389-753
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 9, 2018**
Portland, Oregon
Before: N.R. SMITH, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Cuong Le Quoc Nguyen, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
timely motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Nguyen failed to
provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that he will be
persecuted if he returns to Vietnam. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also
Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The BIA abuses
its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law.”
(quotation marks and citation omitted)). First, Nguyen failed to present evidence
of anti-government activities (aside from donations to an affiliated charitable
organization) with the Viet Tan that would trigger the interest of the Vietnamese
government beyond that which he addressed in his initial application. Second, the
possibility of detention and interrogation alone does not rise to the level of
persecution. See Mendez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869 n.6 (9th Cir.
2003). Although Nguyen evidenced a subjective fear of persecution, he failed to
establish an objective fear of persecution by showing that the possibility of
detention and interrogation would rise to the level of persecution. See Zhou v.
Gonzales, 437 F.3d 860, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2