NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 10 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONGBIN LIU,                                    No.    16-70045

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A016-082-493

 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.

      Rongbin Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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, 

, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the

petition for review.

      In his opening brief, Liu waives any challenge to the BIA’s denial of

withholding of removal and relief under CAT. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 

, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by

argument are deemed abandoned.”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to

withholding of removal and CAT relief.

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

establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Gu v.

Gonzales, 

, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (detention, beating, and

interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution). Substantial evidence

also supports the agency’s determination that Liu did not establish a well-founded

fear of future persecution. See

(petitioner failed to present “compelling,

objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus,

Liu’s asylum claim fails.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                    16-70045