Qingxue Lu v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QINGXUE LU,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71763
Agency No. A075-705-402
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Qingxue Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application 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).
FILED
FEB 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71763
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lu failed to
demonstrate that the harm he experienced in China rose to the level of persecution.
See He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner must show
“substantial evidence of further persecution” apart from spouse’s forced abortion).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Lu failed to
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in China. See Ahmed v. Keisler,
504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (A well-founded fear “must be both
subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable” (quoting Sael v. Ashcroft, 386
F.3d 922, 924 (9th Cir. 2004)). Thus, Lu’s asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Lu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
In his opening brief, Lu does not challenge the agency’s denial of his
application for CAT relief. 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-71763
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --