United States v. 2020-07-21 | 16-71365 | PEIQI LIU V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEIQI LIU,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-71365

Agency No. A096-051-464

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Peiqi Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

*
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

JUL 21 2020

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

2 16-71365
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Liu failed to
establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating,
interrogation, and forced admission that applicant had “done wrong” did not
compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Liu 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, Liu’s asylum
claim fails.
Because Liu failed, for purposes of asylum, to establish past harm severe
enough to rise to a level of past persecution or to establish a well-founded fear of
such harm in the future, she necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard
required for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (recognizing
that the withholding of removal requirement to show a “clear probability” of
persecution is “more stringent than the well-founded fear standard governing
asylum.”).
We do not address Liu’s contentions regarding credibility because the BIA
did not reach that issue. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th

3 16-71365
Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Liu
failed to show it is more likely than not she will 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); see also Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217
(insufficient likelihood of torture).
To the extent Liu raises an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in her
opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in
administrative proceedings below); Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“A petitioner must make a motion for the BIA to reopen before we will hold that
he has exhausted his [ineffective assistance of counsel] claims.”).
Finally, we do not consider the materials Liu references in her opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.