Yuanfang Gu v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUANFANG GU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72067
Agency No. A045-901-702
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2016*
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit
Judges.
Yuanfang Gu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision denying her application for waiver of the
joint-filing requirement to remove the conditional basis of her lawful permanent
FILED
APR 25 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.

-- 1 of 3 --

resident status, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for
review.
Considering the record as a whole, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination as to Gu’s waiver application. See
Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that she was not
entitled to asylum, withholding of removal or CAT relief. She did not suffer past
persecution, so she is not entitled to the presumption of future persecution. 8
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The only testimony she offered as to future persecution
based on her I-Kuan Tao affiliations was that authorities visited her father and left
a summons for her. The authorities did not otherwise threaten her or her family in
any way. Other than one follow up visit, the record is devoid of any evidence that
the Chinese authorities have shown any interest or concern in Gu’s activities since
2008.
Accordingly, the IJ’s determination that Gu did not establish a well-founded
fear or persecution is supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, because Gu
2

-- 2 of 3 --

failed to carry her burden for asylum, the record does not compel the conclusion
that Gu meets the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Pedro–Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000). For the same reasons,
substantial evidence supported the agency’s decision to deny CAT relief because it
was not “more likely than not” that she would be tortured if removed. 8 C.F.R. §
1208.16(c)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --