United States v. 2020-08-10 | 16-70045 | RONGBIN LIU V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONGBIN LIU,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-70045

Agency No. A016-082-493

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Rongbin Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.

*
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

AUG 10 2020

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

2 16-70045
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
In his opening brief, Liu waives any challenge to the BIA’s denial of
withholding of removal and relief under CAT. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by
argument are deemed abandoned.”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to
withholding of removal and CAT relief.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Liu failed to
establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and
interrogation 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.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.