Case Name: FENSHE LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-05
Citations: 520 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 07-73047
Parties: FENSHE LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 520
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
FENSHE LIU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73047.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 3, 2013.
Filed June 5, 2013.
Thomas J. Tarigo, Esquire, Law Offices of Thomas J. Tarigo, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The record supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding regarding forced sterilization, because Liu did not offer a "reasonable and plausible explanation" for his omission of a material claim of persecution. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omit ted); accord Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2010).
The record also supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding regarding his relationship with the Falun Gong, because he could not provide an adequate explanation for the reason that his household registration card indicated that he is a grain farmer rather than an owner of a construction business. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1088. However, even if we were to assume credibility on this issue, the record supports the IJ's conclusion that Liu did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
Because Liu did not adequately brief either his withholding of removal or CAT claims, these claims are waived. See Killdare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 n. 3 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.