Chun Bing Wu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUN BING WU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73787
Agency No. A099-672-761
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 7, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Chun Bing Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
DEC 20 2013
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review findings of fact for substantial evidence, Zhao
v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for
review.
Wu’s claim for asylum relief fails because substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that the harm Wu experienced did not rise to the level of
past persecution, see Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006), and
Wu failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution if
removed. See Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2011).
Because Wu failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows
that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief,
because Wu failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
if he returns to China. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --