Xuebing Lu v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XUEBING LU,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70832
Agency No. A089-983-897
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Xuebing Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying her motion
* 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
NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70832
to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen, Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition
for review.
In her opening brief, Lu does not challenge the agency’s determination that
she failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lu failed to demonstrate an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d
1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future persecution “not objectively reasonable
under the circumstances of [the] case”). Thus, Lu’s asylum claim fails.
Because Lu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she did not
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lu
failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d
1040, 1047 (2009).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lu’s motion to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70832
remand where Lu failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a strong
likelihood that her marriage to a United States citizen was bona fide. See Malhi v.
INS, 336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2003) (providing that an applicant “must offer
evidence that is probative of the motivation for marriage, not just the bare fact of
getting married.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --