
    MAN WOK WONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70517.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 10, 2014.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2014.
    Frank Man Kit Tse, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Joseph Anthony O’Connell, OIL, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and MUELLER, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Man Wok Wong, native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of his application for withholding of removal.

The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. The instant record does not compel the conclusion that Wong suffered past persecution because his then-wife did not undergo forcible abortion or sterilization, and even if she had, no consequence resulting from Wong’s own resistance to the family-planning policy rises to the level of persecution. See Nai Yuan Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir.2010). Similarly, the record does not compel the conclusion that there is a clear probability Wong will suffer future persecution because he and his then-wife emigrated to Panama with the permission of the Chinese government, and have since made several voluntary returns to China without incident. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-18 (9th Cir.2008). Additionally, there is no evidence of efforts by the Chinese government to enforce unpaid fines against Wong.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     