Weiying Liu v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEIYING LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72381
Agency No. A099-889-816
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Weiying Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
JUN 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-72381
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency properly denied Liu’s asylum claim because Liu failed to
provide sufficient corroboration, or show that such evidence was not reasonably
available, to meet her burden of proof. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1094
(9th Cir. 2011); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Thus, we deny the petition as to
Liu’s asylum claim.
Because Liu did not satisfy the lower burden of proof for asylum, she
necessarily did not meet the more stringent standard applicable to withholding of
removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Liu’s CAT
claim because Liu failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on September 28, 2015, has expired.
Respondent's motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --