Xiaohua Ling 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
XIAOHUA LING,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73507
Agency No. A076-868-829
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Xiaohua Ling, 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, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUL 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-73507 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ling failed to
establish past persecution because he did not show that his attempted arrest, the
confiscation of his home, and the arrest of his sister occurred on account of a
protected ground, see Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005)
(persecution as a result of a debt was not on account of a protected ground), and
Ling failed to demonstrate these incidents rose to the level of persecution, see
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that Ling failed to establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution on account of an imputed political opinion or
membership in a particular social group. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d
1089, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2002); Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961-62 (9th Cir.1996)
(en banc) (possibility of prosecution is not persecution on a protected ground).
Accordingly, Ling’s asylum claim fails.
Because Ling did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows
that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

-- 2 of 3 --

07-73507 3
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ling
failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to
China. See Wakkary 558 F.3d at 1067-68.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --