FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 14 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHENGLIANG HE, No. 08-70951
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-861-305
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 11, 2011 **
Pasadena, California
Before: LEAVY and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District
Judge.***
Zhenliang He, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that, even if credible, He
failed to establish past persecution because his detention and physical mistreatment
did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1019-21 (detention, beating and
interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution by Chinese police on
account of unsanctioned religious practice); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336,
340 (9th Cir. 1995) ( “Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this
incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder
would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s finding that He failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution. See id. at 1022. Accordingly, He’s asylum claim fails.
Because He failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
2 08-70951
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because He failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned
to China. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70951