Dong Yu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DONG YU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72380
Agency No. A099-370-295
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Dong Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-72380 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Yu
failed to establish the harm he suffered or will suffer if he returns to China was or
would be on account of his political opinion. See Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112,
1115-17 (9th Cir. 2000) (evidence did not compel conclusion that beating of
Russian anti-communist, shortly after he reported misconduct of his ship captain,
was on account of political opinion). Accordingly, in the absence of a nexus, his
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d
1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Yu has not
established it is more likely than not he will be tortured upon return to China. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, his CAT
claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Yu’s due process challenge, his claim based
on Christianity, and his claim based on involuntary sterilization because he did not

-- 2 of 3 --

10-72380 3
exhaust these claims before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-
78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --