United States v. 2020-08-10 | 15-72420 | RIMING LIU V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIMING LIU, AKA Ri Ming Liu,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-72420

Agency No. A200-803-909

MEMORANDUM
*

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).
FILED

AUG 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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.