Dechao Ma v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DECHAO MA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73452
Agency No. A200-275-364
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Dechao Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
* 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).
FILED
APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-73452
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for
review.
We do not consider the materials Ma references in his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ma did not
establish that his past harm rose to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006) (brief detention, beating, and interrogation did
not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s conclusion that Ma did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of
future persecution. See id. at 1022. Thus, Ma’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ma’s CAT
claim. He failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to China. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --