TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Xue v. Gonzales

Hong Sheng XUE v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General

Xue v. Gonzales, 121 F. App'x 752 (9th Cir. 2005)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 10, 2005
Docket
Nos. 04-70070; Agency No. A76-282-464
Judges
Fernandez, Gould, Graber
Citations
121 F. App'x 752

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MEMORANDUM ***

Hong Sheng Xue, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review the IJ’s denial of asylum for substantial evidence and may reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Petitioner participated in a workplace demonstration that escalated into a physical fight and left many individuals injured. Petitioner received two court summonses regarding the assaults which he ignored and fled the country fearing arrest. Because there is no evidence that the government seeks to prosecute petitioner based on political activity, but instead seeks to question petitioner regarding the ensuing violence, petitioner fails to establish eligibility for asylum. See id.; Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2004).

Because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999).

We decline to review the denial of relief under CAT because it was not raised in the opening brief and petitioner has therefore waived it. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2010: 120102026peak 2010 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder607 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir. 2010)

Most recent

  1. Cruz-Samayoa v. Holder607 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir. 2010)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) 7,531
Martinez-Serrano v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 94 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1996) 2,095
Satnam Singh-Kaur v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 183 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1999) 597
Alexandru Dinu v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., Alexandru Dinu v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 372 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2004) 110

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list