Chunhong Han v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHUNHONG HAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71894
Agency No. A088-484-280
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Chunhong Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-71894
jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We do not consider the materials Han references in her opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th
Cir. 1996) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Han’s contention regarding China’s “exit
laws,” because she did not raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Han failed to
demonstrate the harm she experienced in China rose to the level of
persecution. See 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 Han did not establish
a well-founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022 (petitioner did
not “present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of
persecution”). Thus, her asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Han failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she did

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-71894
not satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Han failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --