Zhenfa Du v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZHENFA DU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72478
Agency No. A087-808-712
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Zhenfa Du, 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
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.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72478
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that even if Du
were assumed to be credible, the harm Du suffered in China did not rise to the
level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d, 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006)
(brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Du did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022
(petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-
founded fear of persecution”). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Du failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he did not
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Du failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d
1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --