Case Name: QINGFA ZHU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-20
Citations: 654 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 15-70603
Parties: QINGFA ZHU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
QINGFA ZHU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-70603
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 20, 2016
Steve Xiao Ming Luan, Law Offices of Steve Luan, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kerry Ann Monaco, Trial Attorney, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
We deny Zhu’s request for oral argument. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Qingfa Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Zhu failed to present sufficiently detailed and consistent testimony, or reasonably available corroboration, to meet his burden of proof for asylum. See id. at 1093-94 (denying petition where asylum applicant failed to provide corroborative evidence requested by the IJ or explain why he could not do so). Thus, Zhu's asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.