NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONGBIN LIU, No. 16-70045 Petitioner, Agency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, 453 F.3d 1182, 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, 94 F.3d 1256, 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, 454 F.3d 1014, 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 id. at 1022 (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