Jing Li; Dianbo Zhou v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JING LI; DIANBO ZHOU,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72799
Agency Nos. A206-038-593
A206-038-594
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 17, 2019
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BURY,**
District Judge.
An immigration judge (“IJ”) ordered Jing Li and Dianbo Zhou, natives and
citizens of China, removed and rejected Li’s application for asylum and withholding
of removal. After the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed the
petitioners’ appeal, they filed this petition for review. We have jurisdiction under 8
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUN 7 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72799
U.S.C. § 1252, and reviewing the factual findings underlying the agency’s denial of
asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence, Madrigal v. Holder,
716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Li failed to
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution under either a pattern or practice or
disfavored group analysis. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 977–79 (9th Cir.
2009). Contrary to Li’s contention, the record does not suggest that the agency failed
to consider her arguments or the evidence presented. Indeed, the BIA explained that
Li failed to make the requisite showing of a well-founded fear even considering her
testimony that she wishes to serve as a church leader. The BIA also “agreed” with
the IJ’s analysis regarding the level of persecution of Christians, who are not
affiliated with the government sanctioned church. The IJ’s analysis included an
express recognition that the number of reported incidents of persecution “represents
a floor, not a ceiling of the actual total number.” See Del Cid Marroquin v. Lynch,
823 F.3d 933, 936–37 (9th Cir. 2016) (court may look to IJ’s decision “as a guide to
what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion” if the BIA expresses its agreement with the
IJ’s reasoning (citation omitted)). Li has failed to identify record evidence that
compels a conclusion contrary to that of the agency. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977–
79.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72799
Because substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum, substantial
evidence necessarily supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal as well.
See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (applicant who fails to
show well-founded fear of future persecution under asylum standard “necessarily
fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --