Jianguang Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Jianguang Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr.

576 F. App'x 674

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2014

Docket13-70809

StatusUnpublished

This text of 576 F. App'x 674 (Jianguang Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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

Jianguang Wang v. Eric Holder, Jr., 576 F. App'x 674 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jianguang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the police’s mistreatment of *675 Wang during his arrest, the detention of Wang and his parents, the fíne they paid, and the warnings about future gatherings do not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006) (brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel finding of past persecution); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found [these incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). We reject Wang’s argument that he was “prohibited from practicing his religion.”

Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Wang failed to demonstrate a well founded fear of future persecution based on one incident he suffered in 2005, because his parents, who are leaders in the church, have remained active and have not described any problems. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (“[a]n applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007). Thus, Wang’s asylum claim fails.

Because Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jianguang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the police’s mistreatment of *675 Wang during his arrest, the detention of Wang and his parents, the fíne they paid, and the warnings about future gatherings do not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006) (brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel finding of past persecution); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found [these incidents constituted] past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). We reject Wang’s argument that he was “prohibited from practicing his religion.”

Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Wang failed to demonstrate a well founded fear of future persecution based on one incident he suffered in 2005, because his parents, who are leaders in the church, have remained active and have not described any problems. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (“[a]n applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007). Thus, Wang’s asylum claim fails.

Because Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 F. App'x 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jianguang-wang-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack