Youfu Qin v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOUFU QIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71912
Agency No. A201-188-320
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Youfu Qin, 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.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
JUL 28 2015
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 3 --

the agency’s factual findings, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.
2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even if credible,
Qin failed to establish his experiences in China constituted past persecution on
account of “other resistance” to China’s coercive population control policy. See
He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 795-96 (9th Cir. 2014). Substantial evidence also
supports the BIA’s finding that Qin failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable
well-founded fear of future persecution in China. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (even
considering continuing interest in petitioner, record did not compel the finding that
petitioner established a well-founded fear of persecution); see also Nagoulko v.
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of persecution too
speculative). We reject Qin’s contention that the BIA erred or misinterpreted the
record, and his contention that the BIA should have remanded his case for an
opportunity to submit additional corroboration. Thus, Qin’s asylum claim fails.
See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018.
Because Qin failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2006).
14-71912 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Qin’s motion for a stay of removal is denied. The temporary stay of
removal will terminate upon issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-71912 3

-- 3 of 3 --