Fangjun Wu v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FANGJUN WU,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72383
Agency No. A099-062-698
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Fangjun Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) 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,
* 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
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-72383
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Wu 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) (petitioner must show “substantial
evidence of further persecution” apart from spouse’s forced abortion). Substantial
evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Wu did not establish a well-founded
fear of future persecution in China. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 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.

-- 2 of 2 --