facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution.” Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d

889, 897 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Abebe v.

Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per curiam). Liu has not

shown that his fear was objectively reasonable with credible, direct, and specific

evidence. Therefore, the agency’s denial of Liu’s application for asylum is

3 supported by substantial evidence.

2. To qualify for withholding of removal, Liu must establish a clear

probability that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground if

removed to China. Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655 (9th Cir. 2000); 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(b)(3)(A). Because the “clear probability” standard for withholding of

removal is more stringent than the well-founded fear standard for asylum, see

Navas, 217 F.3d at 655, where an applicant fails to establish eligibility for asylum,

Liu necessarily fails to establish eligibility under the more stringent standard for

withholding of removal, Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000).

Therefore, the agency’s denial of Liu’s application for withholding of removal is

supported by substantial evidence.

3. To qualify for CAT relief Liu must show that it is more likely than not that

he will be tortured if returned to China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Although

failure to establish eligibility for asylum “does not necessarily doom” an application

for CAT protection, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), this

court has noted that “torture is more severe than persecution and the standard of

proof for the CAT claim is higher than the standard of proof for an asylum claim,”

Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1224 (9th Cir. 2005). Because the record does

not compel a finding that Liu has a well-founded fear of future persecution, the

record does not compel a finding that Liu would more likely than not be tortured if

4 removed to China. Therefore, the agency’s denial of Liu’s application for CAT relief

is supported by substantial evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

5