NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BIN SHEN, No. 14-73046
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-269-614
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Bin Shen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
*
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).
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even if credible,
Shen failed to demonstrate the harm he experienced in China rose to the level of
persecution. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant must
show “substantial evidence of further persecution” apart from spouse’s forced
abortion); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (evidence did
not compel the conclusion that petitioner suffered past persecution). Substantial
evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Shen did not establish a fear of
future persecution in China based on the past family planning incidents. See Gu,
454 F.3d at 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not “present compelling, objective
evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution.”). Thus, his asylum
claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73046