Yuntao Hao v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUNTAO HAO,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72301
Agency No. A087-863-478
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 20, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: CALLAHAN, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Yuntao Hao petitions for review of the dismissal of his appeal by the Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and
we deny the petition for review.
FILED
DEC 24 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that Hao failed to establish
eligibility for asylum. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009).
First, Hao’s experiences did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Hoxha v.
Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). Hao was not arrested, detained,
threatened, or harmed by the Chinese authorities. The only harm Hao personally
suffered while he was in China was the shutting down of his blog.
Second, Hao also failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution. Hao did not establish either a sufficient individualized risk or a
pattern or practice of persecution on account of any of his protected grounds. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009). The BIA found that (1)
Chinese officials have not exhibited any interested in Hao since 2010, and (2) Hao
was not the type of high profile activist that Chinese officials typically pursue.
The evidence that Chinese officials had sought out Hao twice after arriving
in the United States and that his friends were arrested and detained presents
subjective evidence of his fear of future persecution. However, this evidence is not
so compelling that a reasonable fact finder would have to find he suffered past
persecution or had an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, Hao failed to establish
eligibility for asylum.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

2. Because Hao failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See
Martinez-Sanchez v. INS, 794 F.2d 1396, 1397 (9th Cir. 1986).
3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, because Hao
failed to show that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if he returns to
China. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 363 (9th Cir. 2017).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --