NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAI KUEN YU, No. 13-74273
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-335-170
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Lai Kuen Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Even if not barred from asylum based on firm resettlement, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Yu did not demonstrate that she
suffered harm rising to the level of persecution in Hong Kong or China. See
Nagoulko v. 1NS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive”). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determinations that Yu
failed to demonstrate the government would be unwilling or unable to protect her
from her father, see Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 2010)
(applicant bears the burden of establishing that abuse was committed by the
government or an agent the government is unwilling or unable to control), and that
Yu failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on discrimination
against her as an unwed mother, see Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-17 (being “teased,
bothered, discriminated against and harassed” did not compel a finding of
persecution); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc)
(persecution does not include “mere discrimination, as offensive as it may be”).
Thus, Yu’s asylum claim fails.
2
Because Yu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3