NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAIFENG HUANG, No. 20-72451 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-170-371 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 18, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: M. SMITH and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and GORDON,*** District Judge. Haifeng Huang (Huang) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision * 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). *** The Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. denying his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. We review “[t]he BIA’s denial of asylum” and “determination that the petitioner does not have an objectively reasonable fear of persecution for substantial evidence.” Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003); Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). The BIA’s factual findings are also reviewed for substantial evidence. Rayamajhi v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2019). This deferential standard requires us to view factual findings as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2015). While “we consider only the grounds relied upon by” the BIA for its decision, Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), in reviewing the BIA’s basis for its decision we must determine whether the record evidence, “considered as a whole,” “compels” us to reverse the BIA’s decision. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 481 n.1 (1992) (emphasis omitted). “Accordingly, in order to reverse the BIA’s finding under substantial evidence review, ‘we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.’” Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 n.1). 2 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Huang failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his religion and political opinion. To demonstrate past persecution, Huang “has the burden of establishing that (1) his treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.” Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010). “A petitioner who cannot show past persecution might nevertheless be eligible for relief if he …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals