QINGXUE LU V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 14-71763 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT QINGXUE LU, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-71763 Agency No. A075-705-402 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Qingxue Lu, 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. * 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). Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lu failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced in China rose to the level of persecution. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner must show “substantial evidence of further persecution” apart from spouse’s forced abortion). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Lu failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in China. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (A well-founded fear “must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable” (quoting Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir. 2004)). Thus, Lu’s asylum claim fails. In this case, because Lu 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). In his opening brief, Lu does not challenge the agency’s denial of his application for CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). 2 14-71763 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-71763
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.
