TONY ZHONG, AKA Ai Qiang Zhong v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONY ZHONG, AKA Ai Qiang Zhong,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72000
Agency No. A098-445-470
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Tony Zhong, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
DEC 2 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for
substantial evidence, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Zhong does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his
asylum application was untimely. Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum
claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
because Zhong failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution if he
returns to China. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010);
Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Zhong failed to establish a clear probability that he would be tortured if he returns
to China. See Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013).
We lack jurisdiction to review Zhong’s unexhausted due process claim. See
Arsdi v. Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-72000 2

-- 2 of 2 --