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|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
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.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP