Tingting Yan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TINGTING YAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73874
Agency No. A088-128-782
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Tingting Yan, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
DEC 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if credible, Yan’s
single instance of detention and beating, which resulted in non-serious injuries, did
not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21
(9th Cir. 2006); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Substantial
evidence also supports the finding that Yan failed to establish a well-founded fear
of future persecution based on an individualized risk because Yan has not
established that the police has any current interest in her. See Ladha v. INS, 215
F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that a petitioner must provide “credible,
direct, and specific evidence”). We lack jurisdiction to address Yan’s unexhausted
contention that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in China.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, Yan’s asylum
claim fails.
Because Yan failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows
that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 543 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
11-73820 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, we lack jurisdiction over Yan’s CAT claim because she did not
exhaust it with the BIA before filing her petition for review. See Barron, 358 F.3d
at 678.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-73820 3

-- 3 of 3 --