Yan Chen v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAN CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75191
Agency No. A098-741-107
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Yan Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PR/Research 06-75191 2
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the family
planning officials’ attempts to arrest Chen for trying to marry while under the legal
age did not establish past persecution, see id. at 1016, and she did not demonstrate
an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution based on her opposition to
China’s family planning policies or her illegal departure from China, see id. at
1018; see also Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Criminal prosecution
for illegal departure is generally not considered to be persecution.”). Accordingly,
Chen’s asylum claim fails.
Because Chen did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows
that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --