Wencheng 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), so we deny his request for oral
argument.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENCHENG LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73072
Agency No. A099-718-978
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Wencheng Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration
judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
FILED
FEB 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Liu does not contend that he suffered past persecution. Substantial evidence
supports the BIA's determination that Liu failed to establish a well-founded fear of
future persecution because he did not show that the Chinese government is aware
of his activities or is seeking him, or that he would continue to participate in
political activities if he returns to China. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012,
1018 (9th Cir. 2003). We do not address Liu's unexhausted contention that he will
be persecuted based on his group membership. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Because Liu failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows
that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye,
453 F.3d at 1190.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Liu failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
or with the acquiescence of a public official or a person acting in an official
capacity. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). We do not

-- 2 of 3 --

3
consider the evidence submitted by Liu that is not contained in the administrative
record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --