United States v. 2020-09-11 | 17-70476 | LIANG ZHANG V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIANG ZHANG,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-70476

Agency No. A201-199-516

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Liang Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

*
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

SEP 11 2020

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

2 17-70476
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zhang failed
to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and
interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s determination that Zhang did not establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See id. at 1022 (petitioner failed to present
“compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of
persecution”). Thus, Zhang’s asylum claim fails.
We do not reach Zhang’s contentions regarding the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.
2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).
As stated in the court’s March 17, 2017 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.