WEIYING LIU V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72381 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 1 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEIYING LIU, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-72381 Agency No. A099-889-816 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Weiying Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under * 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The agency properly denied Liu’s asylum claim because Liu failed to provide sufficient corroboration, or show that such evidence was not reasonably available, to meet her burden of proof. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1094 (9th Cir. 2011); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Thus, we deny the petition as to Liu’s asylum claim. Because Liu did not satisfy the lower burden of proof for asylum, she necessarily did not meet the more stringent standard applicable to withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Liu’s CAT claim because Liu failed to show it is more likely than not she would 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). The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on September 28, 2015, has expired. Respondent's motion to lift the stay is denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-72381

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.