NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 11 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIANG ZHANG,                                    No.    17-70476

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A201-199-516

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Liang Zhang, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual




      *
             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).
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

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

the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Zhang 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 Zhang 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, Zhang’s asylum claim fails.

      We do not reach Zhang’s contentions regarding the IJ’s adverse credibility

determination. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 

, 829 (9th Cir.

2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).

      As stated in the court’s March 17, 2017 order, the temporary stay of removal

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                       17-70476