Qiaoxia Li v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIAOXIA LI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70474
Agency No. A099-062-643
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Qiaoxia Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* 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).
FILED
MAY 3 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-70474
abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion to remand.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (evidence offered must not have been “available and
could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing”); see also
Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d at 1062 (“The BIA abuses its discretion if its decision is
arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Li failed to
establish past harm rising to the level of persecution, see Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364
F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Persecution is “an extreme concept that does not
include every sort of treatment [that] our society regards as offensive”) (internal
quotation and citation omitted), and the BIA’s determination that Li failed to
establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground, see Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000)
(applicant bears the burden of establishing “by credible, direct, and specific

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-70474
evidence . . . facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution.”).
Because Li failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453
F.3d at 1190.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Li’s contentions regarding the agency’s
credibility analysis because she did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
issues not raised to the agency).
Finally, the 90-day stay of proceedings granted on February 23, 2015, has
expired. Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --