Cai Yin He 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CAI YIN HE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71897
Agency No. A099-666-093
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cai Yin He, 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 relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-71897 2
U.S.C. § 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.
Even if He’s testimony was credible, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that he did not suffer past persecution where he was not
physically harmed and was detained for short periods of time. See Gu v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s finding that He does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution.
See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Li v. INS, 92
F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 1996) (no persecution where the petitioner would face the
same punishment as any other returning migrant).
Because He failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows
that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because He failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
or with the acquiescence of the government of China. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --