Zhong 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ZHONG HE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72959
Agency No. A094-933-763
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Zhong He, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-72959
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that He did not
establish his conduct constituted “other resistance” to China’s population control
program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); cf. Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1094-95
(9th Cir. 2010). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination
that He did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution too speculative). Accordingly, He’s asylum claim fails.
Because He failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his claim
for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
We lack jurisdiction to review He’s contentions regarding a pattern or
practice of persecution against people who resist China’s family planning policies,
whether such people are a disfavored group, the universal household registration
system, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, because he failed to raise
them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --