Dong Gen Piao 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DONG GEN PIAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70573
Agency No. A098-445-408
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Dong Gen Piao, 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
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
DEC 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70573 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and we review for
substantial evidence factual findings. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172,
1177-78 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Piao established
extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely filed asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5).
Piao does not contend he suffered past persecution but claims he will be
persecuted on account of his practice of Falun Gong. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because the problems his
wife has experienced do not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not
that he will suffer future persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Piao failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
removed to China. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider the country report Piao references in his opening brief because
our review is limited to the administrative record underlying the immigration
judge’s decision. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --