Yaocheng Liu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAOCHENG LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70375
Agency No. A095-023-342
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Yaocheng Liu, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
FILED
OCT 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70375 2
agency’s factual findings, Jiang v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010),
and we deny the petition for review.
Even if Liu established extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely
filing of his asylum application, the record does not compel the finding that his
subsequent delay in filing was reasonable. See Husyev. v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d
1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Liu’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Liu did not
demonstrate he suffered past persecution as a result of “other resistance” to China’s
family planning policy. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); cf., Jiang, 611 F.3d at 1094-
95. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Liu failed to
demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be persecuted based on past family
planning violations or his political party membership and political activities in the
United States. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(possibility of future persecution too speculative). We reject Liu’s contention that
the IJ failed to consider relevant country conditions. Accordingly, Liu’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, Liu failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
removed to China. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --