NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANAN FANG, No. 18-73043
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-208-875
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Yanan Fang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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).
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Fang failed to
establish that any harm he suffered or fears in China was or would be on account
of his political opinion. See Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th
Cir. 2016) (discussing three-factor test set forth by Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec.
526, 532-33 (BIA 2011) for determining whether retaliation for whistleblowing
constitutes persecution on account of political opinion); Pagayon v. Holder, 675
F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not
constitute persecution based on a protected ground). Thus, Fang’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Fang failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
To the extent Fang contends that the IJ was biased, we reject this contention
as without merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 18-73043