ZUO XIE V. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., No. 08-73590 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 5 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZUO JIE XIE, No. 08-73590 Petitioner, Agency No. A029-904-278 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Zuo Jie Xie, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * 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). factual findings, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. Xie contends he suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his Christian religion. Substantial evidence supports the BIA s finding that, even if Xie is a Christian and testified credibly, Xie failed to demonstrate he suffered harm rising to the level of persecution when police raided his house church gathering. See id. at 1019 21; Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (persecution is an extreme concept ). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA s finding that Xie did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, where Xie did not provide any credible, direct, and specific evidence he is likely to suffer persecution, as opposed to harassment or discrimination, upon return to China. See Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022. Accordingly, Xie s asylum claim fails. Because Xie failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2

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.