Xiao Qiang Lin v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIAO QIANG LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73230
Agency No. A088-786-303
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Xiao Qiang Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
MAR 07 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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 cases is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014,
1018 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lin failed to
establish past persecution on account of “other resistance” to China’s coercive
population control policy. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 795-96 (9th Cir. 2014);
see also Gu, 454 F.3d at 1020-21 (record did not compel the finding that petitioner
suffered past persecution). We reject Lin’s contention that the BIA failed to
consider his experiences cumulatively. Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s conclusion that Lin did not establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution. See He, 749 F.3d at 796. Thus, Lin’s asylum claim fails.
Because Lin failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of
removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190
(9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-73230 2

-- 2 of 2 --