Case ID: f-appx_339/html/0803-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHENG-ZHONG GUI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-77055.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 29, 2009.
    
    Filed July 31, 2009.
    Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Robert F. Adams, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division/Fraud Section, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cheng-Zhong Gui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review findings of fact for substantial evidence, Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Gui failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution on account of his religion affiliation. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring a petitioner to show that a criminal investigation had “no bona fide objective” in order to compel a nexus finding). Accordingly, Gui’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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