Narrative Opinion Summary
In this immigration case, a Chinese national sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision, which upheld the denial of his application for withholding of removal by an immigration judge. The court exercised jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, applying de novo review to legal questions and a substantial evidence standard to factual findings. The petitioner needed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution based on protected grounds such as religion if returned to China. Despite his conversion to I-Kuan Tao in the United States, the petitioner did not provide compelling evidence of likely persecution upon return. The court found the evidence, including a translated article on religious suppression, insufficient to overturn the BIA's decision. Additionally, the petitioner waived arguments regarding the denial of asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture by not contesting these issues. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. The case disposition remains unpublished, carrying no precedential value as per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Criteria for Withholding of Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: To qualify, the applicant must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution based on specific protected grounds if returned to their home country.
Reasoning: To qualify for withholding of removal, Wu must demonstrate a clear probability of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political opinion if returned to China.
Evidence Requirement for Withholding of Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that he would face threats to life or freedom due to his religious beliefs upon return to China.
Reasoning: Wu failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim, even assuming his credibility.
Non-Precedential Dispositionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This case disposition is not published and does not set a precedent.
Reasoning: The case disposition is not published and does not set a precedent, as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard of Review for BIA Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reviews legal questions de novo and factual determinations under a substantial evidence standard, requiring that the BIA's decision be upheld unless the evidence compels a different conclusion.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, reviewing legal questions de novo and factual determinations under a substantial evidence standard, requiring that the BIA's decision be upheld unless the evidence compels a different conclusion.
Waiver of Arguments in Immigration Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Failure to contest certain denials constitutes a waiver of those arguments in the appeal process.
Reasoning: Notably, Wu did not contest the BIA's denial of his asylum application or the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, which the court noted constitutes a waiver of those arguments.