Case ID: f-appx_105/html/0947-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sheng CHEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72593.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
    Jisheng Li, Esq., Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Shelley R. Goad, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sheng Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying him asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

We conclude that the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the IJ’s determination that petitioner has not met his burden of establishing eligibility for relief. See Munoz v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir.2003).

Because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.