Lizhong Cui 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIZHONG CUI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70556
Agency Nos. A098-467-501
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Lizhong Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70556 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de
novo legal determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.
2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Cui’s single instance
of arrest, detention, and interrogation did not rise to the level of past persecution.
See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a
single detention, beating, and interrogation did not compel a finding of past
persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Cui
failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future harm. See id. at 1022
(determining that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future
persecution where he did not present sufficient objective evidence that authorities
had a continued interest in him); see also Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975 (9th
Cir. 2009) (noting that petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for
asylum). Accordingly, Cui’s asylum claim fails.
Because Cui has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70556 3
Finally, Cui did not challenge the agency’s findings regarding CAT relief.
See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner waived
CAT claim when he failed to raise it in his brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --