XING GU V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-73113 (9th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XING GU, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-73113 Agency No. A205-772-661 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Xing Gu, 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 the * 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). agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Gu established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Gu 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 Gu failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted if returned to China. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2001) (record did not compel conclusion petitioner would more likely than not be persecuted if returned). Thus, Gu’s withholding of removal claim fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-73113

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.