Case: 20-60553 Document: 00515910155 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 22, 2021
No. 20-60553
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Mingjian Wu,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208-900-651
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Mingjian Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum. Wu asserts that there is
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60553 Document: 00515910155 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2021
No. 20-60553
substantial evidence that, if removed, he would suffer persecution on account
of his religious beliefs.
We review the final decision of the BIA and only consider the IJ’s
decision when it influenced the decision of the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493
F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). We review questions of law de novo and factual
findings for substantial evidence. Id. at 594; Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531,
536 (5th Cir. 2009). Under the substantial-evidence standard, we will not
reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so
compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Wang,
569 F.3d at 537. Whether an applicant is eligible for asylum is a factual finding
which we review for substantial evidence. Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339,
344–45 (5th Cir. 2005).
To be eligible for asylum, an alien must show that he or she is unable
or unwilling to return to his or her country “because of persecution or a well-
founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A); see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). The instant record does not
compel the conclusion that the harm Wu endured was severe enough to
amount to past persecution. See Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 109, 112,
117 (5th Cir. 2006); Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 596–97 (5th Cir. 2006);
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Gu v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 1014, 1017–21 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the BIA properly
denied the petitioner’s claim of past persecution even though the petitioner
had been arrested, detained, and beaten at a police station on account of his
religious practices).
The BIA did not err in denying Wu’s application for asylum. His
petition for review is DENIED.
2