Jianshi Xie v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANSHI XIE,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73759
Agency No. A088-093-308
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jianshi 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 and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
FILED
SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Xie’s request
for oral argument.

-- 1 of 2 --

the agency’s factual findings. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85
(9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Xie does not contend he suffered past persecution in China, nor does he
pursue the family planning claim he raised to the agency below. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). We do not consider the
background information from the 2012 Human Rights Report referred to in Xie’s
opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this
court’s review is limited to the administrative record). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Xie failed to demonstrate he had a well-founded
fear of future persecution due to his participation in a Christian house church. See
Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (record did not compel
conclusion that house church participant had a well-founded fear of persecution).
Because Xie failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily
failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See
Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, we deny Xie’s request to remand to the BIA for further
consideration of administrative closure.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73759 2

-- 2 of 2 --