FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QI YING WANG, No. 07-72197
Petitioner, Agency No. A043-941-061
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 30, 2011 **
Pasadena, California
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Qi Ying Wang is a native and citizen of China. She is married to an
American citizen and has two American citizen sons. Claiming that if returned to
China, she will be subject to its One Child Policy, Wang seeks asylum,
withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). The immigration judge (“IJ”) concluded that her fear
was not objectively reasonable; the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
affirmed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Wang’s
petition for review.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s factual finding
that Wang’s fear was not objectively reasonable. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962,
966 (9th Cir. 1998). Because Wang admitted that she has not suffered past
persecution, the “the IJ and the BIA [we]re entitled to rely on all relevant evidence
in the record, including [any] State Department report[s], in considering whether
the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future
persecution.” Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002)
(distinguishing Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998)).
The record includes documentary evidence that China’s enforcement of its
One Child Policy is uneven and that its enforcement in Wang’s home province is
lax. United States Dept. of State, China Profile of Asylum Claims and Country
Conditions 22–23 (2004). This evidence also indicates that because Wang’s
husband is an American citizen and her children were born abroad, she is
particularly unlikely to be subject to the One Child Policy. Id. at 26.
2
When confronted with this evidence, Wang’s only response was a general
statement of apprehension. This simply does not meet her burden of “adducing
credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts that would support a
reasonable fear of persecution.” Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1159
(9th Cir. 1999).
Because Wang has failed to establish a “well-founded” fear of persecution
she has not met the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
While Wang’s failure to establish eligibility for asylum does not
automatically defeat her CAT claim, Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1282–83
(9th Cir. 2001), her testimony is similarly insufficient to establish a likelihood of
torture upon removal to China.
DENIED.
3