JIAQUAN WU V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73040 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIAQUAN WU, No. 11-73040 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-131-289 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 5, 2015** Pasadena California Before: PREGERSON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and CARR,*** Senior District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Petitioner Jiaquan Wu petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We affirm. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Wu failed to demonstrate that he has been subject to past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution, which he must do in order to be granted asylum. Chinese government officials physically harmed Wu on only one occasion, in 1990, for his resistance to China’s family planning policies. This one incident is likely insufficient to rise to the level of past persecution. See, e.g., Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir. 1995). Similarly, Wu did not suffer substantial economic deprivation as a result of his run-in with authorities: five years after the incident, Wu was self-employed and earning $85,000 USD annually. Reversal is not warranted on the grounds that the BIA found Wu’s testimony lacked credibility because, in reviewing the IJ’s decision, the BIA assumed credibility. Barraza Rivera v. INS, 913 F.2d 1443, 1449-50 (9th Cir. 1990). Wu’s claim that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution also fails: it is unlikely his middle-aged wife, who has an IUD, will become pregnant again; his resistance to Chinese family planning officials occurred more than twenty years ago; and China does not have a pattern or practice of persecuting similarly-situated Christians. 2. The BIA did not err in denying Wu’s application for withholding of removal. Because Wu failed to meet the “well-founded fear” of persecution standard required to obtain asylum, he cannot meet the more stringent “clear probability” standard necessary for withholding of removal eligibility. Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 925 F.2d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 1991)). AFFIRM.
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.
