MINGQIANG XIE V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72361 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 22 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MINGQIANG XIE, No. 13-72361 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-971-329 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Mingqiang Xie, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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). the agency’s factual findings. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Xie’s experience of escaping arrest during a Christian house church service in China did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006). The record does not support Xie’s contention that he was disallowed from practicing his religion. In addition, the record does not compel the conclusion that Xie established a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1021-22 (speculative fear of persecution based on hearsay testimony did not compel conclusion that house church participant established a well-founded fear of persecution). Thus, Xie’s asylum claim fails. Because Xie failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-72361

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.