Case Name: XINJUN ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-19
Citations: 573 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: No. 12-73774
Parties: XINJUN ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 654–654

Head Matter:
XINJUN ZHU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73774.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 19, 2014.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Drew Brinkman, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office, of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Xinjun 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 decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.
Zhu testified he is married and he is the biological father of two children, and that his wife was sterilized under China's family planning policies. Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Zhu failed to sufficiently corroborate his testimony with reasonably obtainable evidence to meet his burden of proof for withholding of removal. See id. at 1047-48; Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1094 (9th Cir.2011) (record did not compel the finding that petitioner presented sufficient corroborating evidence to meet his burden of proof). We reject Zhu's contention that the BIA mischaracterized the record. Thus, Zhu'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.