Yun Fei Hao v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUN FEI HAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73855
Agency No. A097-656-424
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Yun Fei Hao, 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 withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73855 2
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Hao did not suffer
past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006)
(persecution is an “extreme concept” that “does not include every sort of treatment
our society regards as offensive”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Hao does not have a
clear probability of future persecution based on his practice of Tibetan Buddhism.
See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1157, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (the “sum of
evidence” does not compel a finding that petitioner has a clear probability of future
persecution). Accordingly, Hao’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Hao failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned
to China. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --