United States v. 2020-11-16 | 15-73277 | MEISHUN YAN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEISHUN YAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-73277

Agency No. A099-717-665

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Meishun Yan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s 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

NOV 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Yan 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). We reject as
unsupported by the record Yan’s contentions that the agency failed to consider the
totality of circumstances in finding he failed to establish past persecution.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Yan 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, Yan’s asylum claim fails.
As stated in the court’s January 14, 2016 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.