Zhanguo Qui 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ZHANGUO QUI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-70369
Agency No. A099-445-647
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Zhanguo Qui, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”). Our
FILED
AUG 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-70369 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
factual findings, Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001), and
we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Qui’s contention that he is eligible for
asylum and withholding of removal as a member of a particular social group of
“property owners in a specific area that were all affected by the same road project”
because he did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not
raised before the BIA).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Qui did not
demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th
Cir. 2004) (petitioner failed to establish authorities imputed a political opinion to
him); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he
Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an
asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Qui’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1052.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-70369 3
Finally, Qui does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding the
agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --