Min Fu; Yibin Jiang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIN FU; YIBIN JIANG,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72470
Agency Nos. A075-768-359
A075-768-360
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Min Fu and Yibin Jiang, natives and citizens of China, petition for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
APR 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72470 2
factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners contend that the birth of their second child in the United States
violated China’s population-control policy and would subject Min Fu to forced
sterilization upon return to China, citing the experience of one or more friends in
China and a warning Min Fu received from a birth control official before leaving
China in 1997. The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners met
their burden of showing a clear probability of persecution. See id. at 1190 (clear
probability standard requires objective evidence that it is more likely than not that
alien will be subject to persecution upon removal) (citation omitted); Lin v. Holder,
588 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting BIA’s conclusion in Matter of J-W-S-,
24 I. & N. Dec. 185 (BIA 2007), that the Chinese government does not have a
national policy requiring forced sterilization of a parent who returns with a second
child born outside of China). Accordingly, their withholding of removal claim
fails.
Finally, we deny petitioners’ request for oral argument.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --