Hong Yang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HONG YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73130
Agency No. A099-048-452
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Hong Yang, native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73130 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992), and de novo due process claims,
Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Yang did not
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because Yang did not
demonstrate the Chinese authorities have any continuing interest in pursuing her,
see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (record evidence did not
show petitioner had objectively reasonable basis for future fear), and because
Yang’s husband continues to reside in China without harm, see Aruta v. INS, 80
F.3d 1389, 1395 (9th Cir. 1996) (petitioner’s similarly situated relatives had not
been harmed).
We reject Yang’s due process contention that the IJ was biased, because she
has not demonstrated any bias or that the proceedings were fundamentally unfair.
See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner
must show proceeding was “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented
from reasonably presenting his case” and that he was prejudiced) (internal citation
and quotation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --