
    YONGHUA LIU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73164
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed June 2, 2017
    Richard Lucero, Law Office of Richard Lucero, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Gregory Darrell Mack, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yonghua 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Tor-tee (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083, 1089-90 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Among other things, the agency denied Liu’s application for relief on the ground that he failed to adequately corroborate his claim. In doing so, the agency found that the evidence Liu had submitted did not meet his burden of proof for relief. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See id. at 1094. Thus, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

We reject Liu’s contention that the BIA erred by finding that he waived his CAT claim. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions regarding the merits of his CAT claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     