
    XUEBING LU, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70832
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Kaveh Ardalan, Law Office of Kaveh Ardalan, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner
    Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorney, John D. Williams, Esquire, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, TROTT,' and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xuebing Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying her motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

In her opening brief, Lu does not challenge the agency’s determination that she failed to establish past persecution on account of a protected ground. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lu failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future persecution “not objectively reasonable under the circumstances of [the] case”). Thus, Lu’s asylum claim fails.

Because Lu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case, she did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lu failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Chinese government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lu’s motion to remand where Lu failed to present clear and convincing evidence of a strong likelihood that her marriage to a United States citizen was bona fide. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 2003) (providing that an applicant “must offer evidence that is probative of the motivation for marriage, not just the bare fact of getting married.”).

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