Riming Liu v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIMING LIU, AKA Ri Ming Liu, No. 15-72420
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-803-909
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 5, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Riming Liu, 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 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 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).
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Liu does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish
past harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Liu did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to
present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of
persecution”). Thus, Liu’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Liu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, Liu does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to
establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2