Yang Chen 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). Thus, we deny Chen’s
request for oral argument.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANG CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71405
Agency No. A095-024-129
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.
Yang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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.
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-71405
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Chen contends the police persecuted him based on an actual and/or imputed
political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chen
failed to show a protected ground was at least one central reason for the harm he
suffered or fears suffering upon return. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); cf. Hu v.
Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1018-19 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ’s conclusion not supported by
substantial evidence where police accused petitioner of acting against the
government and Communist party). We reject Chen’s contention that the BIA
failed to consider whether he was harmed on account of his actual political
opinion. Accordingly, Chen’s claim for asylum fails.
Because Chen failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim
for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --