Court Opinion

ID: 9868851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:01:35.516469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:29.690730
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YUXIANG LIU,                                    No. 22-782
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A201-047-651
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Yuxiang Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

      *
             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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,

1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Liu failed to

meet his burden of proof to adequately corroborate his claims. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Jie Shi Liu v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2018)

(when IJ gives notice that corroborating evidence is required “and the petitioner

then provides no meaningful corroboration or an explanation for its absence, the IJ

may deny the application for asylum”); see also Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886,

889 (9th Cir. 2013) (IJs may set and extend time limits for the filing of applications

and related documents). Thus, Liu’s asylum claim fails.

      Because Zhu is ineligible for asylum, he is also ineligible for withholding of

removal. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Because

[petitioner] was unable to meet his burden to demonstrate that he is eligible for

asylum he necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of

removal.”).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Liu failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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).

                                        2                                    22-782
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITON FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                3                                   22-782