Xiuman Wan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
XIUMAN WAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71579
Agency No. A075-759-065
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Xiuman Wan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
APR 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71579
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Wan established changed
circumstances to excuse the delay in filing her asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.4(a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-658 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). Accordingly, her asylum claim fails.
With respect to Wan’s withholding of removal claim, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s conclusion that Wan failed to establish past persecution
where police detained, questioned, and hit her once, and where she was
subsequently fired from her job and required to report to the police. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021 (9th Cir. 2006); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating that the fact petitioner was fired from her job because
of her religious beliefs, while discriminatory, is not the type of economic
deprivation that rises to the level of persecution). Additionally, the record does not
compel the conclusion that Wan has established a clear probability of future
persecution. See Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 658. Accordingly, Wan’s withholding of
removal claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71579
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Wan failed
to establish a likelihood of torture if returned to China. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1068. Accordingly, Wan’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --