NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MING ZHANG, No. 14-72300 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-124-944 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Ming Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s * 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). factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Zhang suffered in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 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”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Zhang failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in China. See id. at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Zhang’s asylum claim fails. In this case, because Zhang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Zhang 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). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Zhang’s contentions regarding 2 14-72300 pattern or practice, disfavored group, and economic persecution. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 14-72300 14-72300 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Ming Zhang v. William Barr 28 May 2019 Agency Unpublished 73bcee12f8c6b9e6f1ea0dff0013848af1c8c585
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals