RONGQING WANG V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73409 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONGQING WANG, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73409 Agency No. A201-207-106 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Rongqing Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. We do not consider new evidence that was not part of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963–64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The record does not compel the conclusion that the mistreatment Wang suffered in China, even if credible, rose to the level of past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding [the court] must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Wang did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1021-22. Thus, we deny the petition as to Wang’s asylum claim. Because Wang did not establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Wang failed to establish that he would more likely than not be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a government official if returned to China. 2 14-73409 See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-73409
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.
