Opinion
No. 16-72692
07-21-2020
WENSHI QI, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A087-862-542 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Wenshi Qi, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). 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). We deny the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Qi references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court's review is limited to the administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Qi failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Qi did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022 (petitioner failed to present "compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution"). Thus, Qi's asylum claim fails.
Because Qi failed, for purposes of asylum, to establish past harm severe enough to rise to the level of past persecution or to establish a well-founded fear of such harm in the future, he necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard required for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (recognizing that the withholding of removal requirement to show a "clear probability" of persecution is "more stringent than the well-founded fear standard governing asylum.").
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Qi failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.