Weigang Zhang 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEIGANG ZHANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71339
Agency No. A078-333-527
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Weigang Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71339 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if credible,
Zhang failed to establish the harm he suffered during his one detention rose to the
level of past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1020-21 (9th Cir.
2006). In addition, the record in this case does not compel the conclusion that it is
more likely than not that the government will single him out for persecution if he
returns to China, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003), nor
does the record compel the conclusion that Zhang established a pattern or practice
of persecution of people with imputed political opinions, see Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1060-62 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, Zhang’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Zhang waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of CAT relief because he
did not address the issue in his brief. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183
(9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --