Hai Lin v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAI LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73950
Agency No. A088-272-455
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Hai Lin, 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.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
FILED
NOV 24 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 --

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.
Lin claims past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution
based on a violation of China’s population control program and his anti-
government internet postings. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that
Lin failed to establish his experiences, even cumulatively, rose to the level of
persecution. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (record did not
compel a finding of past persecution where petitioner failed to present evidence of
persecution beyond his wife’s forced abortion); see also Gu v. Gonzalez, 454 F.3d
1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (three day detention, interrogation, and beating with
a rod did not rise to the level of persecution). We reject Lin’s contention that the
BIA evaluated his claim of future persecution under the wrong legal standard.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lin failed to establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (no well-
founded fear of future persecution where petitioner remained unharmed after single
detention). Thus, we deny Lin’s petition as to his asylum claim.
Because Lin failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
12-73950 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Lin’s contentions related to a pattern
and practice of persecution or membership in a disfavored group because he did
not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
12-73950 3

-- 3 of 3 --