Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0333-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHUAN GANG WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70632.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2014.
    Michael A. Rohr, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael A. Rohr, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kathryn McKinney, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chuan Gang Wang, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Wang’s asylum claim because Wang failed to provide sufficient evidence to corroborate his claim of persecution in China. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093-1094 (9th Cir.2011) (upholding conclusion petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof where he was given notice of required corroboration and opportunity to obtain the evidence or explain his failure to do so). We reject Wang’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

Because Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.