Case Name: Qiang ZHOU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-16
Citations: 171 F. App'x 204
Docket Number: No. 04-72753; Agency No. A78-451-251
Parties: Qiang ZHOU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 204–205

Head Matter:
Qiang ZHOU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72753.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 16, 2006.
Zhou Qiang, Rowland Heights, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Oñ, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Qiang Zhou, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance without opinion of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner contends that he was persecuted because of his Christian beliefs. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's determination that petitioner's asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir.2005). Therefore, we dismiss the petition as to the asylum claim.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over the withholding of removal claim, and deny the petition. See Gu v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.