N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
YONG B IN LIU, AKA Yongbin Liu,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-70924 Age n c y No. A200-755-540
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 13, 2019 ** Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd C ALLAHAN a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Yong B i n Liu, a native and c itiz e n of the Pe ople ’ s R e public of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igrat ion judge ’ s (IJ) de c i sion de ny ing his a pplic ation for 

# F IL ED
J UN 19 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). W e re v i e w fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e . J

iang v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th C ir. 2010). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b),
and we de ny the pe tition. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the history

of this
c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . I The B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t Liu fa ile d

to e sta blish proof of further pe rse c ution to qualify

for a sy lum

is supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e He v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th C ir. 2014) (holding tha t while an a sy lum

se e ke r
m ay pre se nt his spouse s’ s forc e d a bortion a s proof of pe rse c ution, “h e m ust show substa ntia l e vide nc e of furthe r pe rse c ution in support of his c la im s.” ). Liu’ s c la im of furthe r pe rse c ution re lie s prim arily on his de te ntion a

n d the fine le vie d a ga inst him . Though Liu wa s de ta ine d for 15 da y s for ha ving bre a c he d

fam ily pla nning polic ie s a nd fe llow de ta ine e s be a t him , C hine se a uthoritie s did not phy sic a lly ha rm him nor did he pre se nt e v ide nc e tha t C hine se a

uthoritie s we re una

ble or unwilling to c o ntrol the de ta ine e s. Se eBaghdasaryan v . Holde r , 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha

t in orde r to e s ta

blish pa st pe rse c ution, a

pe titione r m

ust de m onstra

te tha t “ the pe rse c ution wa s c om m itte d by the gove rnm e nt, or by

forc e s that the gove rnm e nt wa s una

ble or unwilling to c ontrol.” ).

2Liu c la im s tha t the 8,000 R

M B fine im

pose d on him

rise s to the le ve l of pe rse c ution be c a

use it re sulte d in substa

ntia l e c onom ic disa dva

nta ge to him and his fa m ily . Howe v e r, Liu ha s not shown a ny e vide nc e of the e ffe c t

of the fine on him or his fa m ily , a nd he wa s a

ble to pa y off a signific antly

la rge r 60,000 R

M B ba nk loa n to tra ve l to Gua

m and work. Se e He , 749 F.3d a t 796 (finding tha

t a fine for viola ting C hina ’ s one -c hild polic y did not rise

to the le ve l of e c o nom ic pe rse c ution whe re the pe titione r wa s “ a b le to borrow a

m uc h la rge r sum to tra ve l to theUnite d Stat e s” an d “ wa s a

ble to c ontinue working” a fte r the fine wa s im pose d). Thus, substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t Liu did not suffe

r pe rse c ution. Liu ha s not e s ta

blishe d tha

t he ha s a we l l-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution that is indepe nde nt of a

ny c la im of pa s t pe rse c ution: Liu c ontinue d to livein C hina for five m onths a fte r his de t e ntion, unha rm e d; his wifeand c h ild ha ve re m a ine d in C hina , unha

rm e d; a n d de spite his prior infra c tion, he wa s a ble to obta in a

work visa . In sum , substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t he wa s not e ntitle d to a sy lum
. II Liu did not a

rgue for re vie w of the B IA’ s de c ision tha t he is not e ligiblefor withholding of rem o v a l or C AT re lie f. The re fore , those issue s a re wa ive d, a

nd we
3do not a d dre ss the m . S e e Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ [A] rgum e nts not ra i se d by a pa rty in its open i ng brie f are de e m e d wa ive d.” ).

PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4