Weibo Xie v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEIBO XIE,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70812
Agency No. A206-334-905
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Weibo Xie, 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, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-70812
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Xie 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
determination that Xie 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, Xie’s asylum claim
fails.
In this case, because Xie failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he also
failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Xie
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 Zheng v. Holder, 644
F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --