Shen v. Sessions, 060117 FED9, 14-73046

Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Judge Panel:Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Party Name:BIN SHEN, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Case Date:June 01, 2017
Docket Nº:14-73046
 
FREE EXCERPT

BIN SHEN, Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73046

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

June 1, 2017

         NOT FOR PUBLICATION

          Submitted May 24, 2017 [**]

         On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-269-614

          Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

          MEMORANDUM [*]

         Bin Shen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

         Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that, even if credible, Shen failed to demonstrate the harm he experienced in China rose to the level of persecution. See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (applicant must show "substantial evidence of further persecution" apart from spouse's forced abortion); Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (evidence did not compel the conclusion that petitioner suffered past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's conclusion that Shen did not establish a fear of future persecution in China based on the past family planning incidents. See Gu, 454 F.3d at 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not "present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution."). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

         PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Notes:

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP