### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60711 Summary Calendar

ZHONG LIANG CHEN, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A088 066 922

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Zhong Liang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Agains t Torture (CAT). Because the BIA approved of and relied upon the IJ’s decision, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 13, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60711 Document: 00512050985 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2012No. 11-60711

Chen argues that the BIA erred in denying his application for withholding of removal. We review that denial for substantial evidence, reversing only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Id. We find th a t the BIA’s determination that Chen did not suffer past persecution and does not harbor a well-founded fear of future persecution based on an enumerated gr o u n d i s supported by substantial evidence. Taking all of his statements as true, the BIA concluded that the enumerated incidents, which o c c u rred during Chen’s schooling, did not rise to the level of persecution. We agree that Chen has not shown that the evidence compels a contrary determin a t i on. See Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2 006). T u rning to relief under the CAT, Chen argues that the BIA erred i n denying his application. “Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering

. . . is intentionally inflicted on a person . . . wh e n such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a pub l i c official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). To obtain relief under the CAT, an applicant must show that it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if returned to his home country. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Zhang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2005). Chen’s testimony did not show that it is more likely than not that the Chinese government and its officials, acting in their official capacity, would torture him or acquiesce in his torture. Chen does not argue any error with respect to the BIA’s d e n i a l of his application for asylum. Accordingly, he has waived review of any issue related to the denial of his asylum application. See Thuri v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004). The petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT is DENIED.

2 Case: 11-60711 Document: 00512050985 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2012