United States v. 2020-07-08 | 18-71424 | HONGXIN LIU V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HONGXIN LIU; SHENGYANG LI,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71424
Agency Nos. A206-659-444
A206-659-445
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 6, 2020
**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Hongxin Liu and Shenyang Li petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) order dismissing the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial
of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
JUL 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
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).

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
and we deny the petition.
The IJ and BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioners failed to establish
eligibility for asylum or withholding, because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination. Petitioners often contradicted each other on
events that were central to their applications for asylum and withholding. For
example, Liu and Li testified inconsistently about whether Li was at their home
when Liu was removed by state officials, and about whether they visited their
young son after they went into hiding. The record therefore does not compel a
finding that Petitioners are credible.
The IJ also concluded that Petitioners were not eligible for relief under CAT,
and Petitioners have not challenged that determination. Petitioners have therefore
waived their CAT claim. See Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991, 998
(9th Cir. 2012) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and
distinctly in a party's opening brief.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION DENIED.
2