Carlos De La Roca v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Carlos De La Roca v. Loretta E. Lynch

671 F. App'x 965

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2016

Docket13-71424

StatusUnpublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 965 (Carlos De La Roca v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlos De La Roca v. Loretta E. Lynch, 671 F. App'x 965 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 immi *966 gration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (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. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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 immi *966 gration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (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. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 F. App'x 965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlos-de-la-roca-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack