QIANGQIANG CHEN V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-71551 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 02 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT QIANGQIANG CHEN, No. 08-71551 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-961-932 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Qiangqiang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order summarily affirming an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the IJ s conclusion that Chen s experiences in China, including the mistreatment he suffered during his detention and the imposition of a daily reporting requirement did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. at 1020-21. The record supports the IJ s denial of Chen s asylum claim, because Chen failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in light of the fact that his similarly situated father lives in China unharmed. See Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Chen did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 08-71551

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.