From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zhenfa Du v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 23, 2019
No. 14-72478 (9th Cir. May. 23, 2019)

Opinion

No. 14-72478

05-23-2019

ZHENFA DU, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A087-808-712 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Zhenfa Du, 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 relief 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that even if Du were assumed to be credible, the harm Du suffered in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d, 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Du did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022 (petitioner failed to present "compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution"). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Du failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Du failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Zhenfa Du v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 23, 2019
No. 14-72478 (9th Cir. May. 23, 2019)
Case details for

Zhenfa Du v. Barr

Case Details

Full title:ZHENFA DU, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 23, 2019

Citations

No. 14-72478 (9th Cir. May. 23, 2019)