RIMING LIU V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 15-72420 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RIMING LIU, AKA Ri Ming Liu, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72420 Agency No. A200-803-909 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Riming Liu, 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 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). Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Liu does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish past harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Liu did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, Liu’s asylum claim fails. In this case, because Liu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Finally, Liu does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2

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.