Case Name: YUE YUN LI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-18
Citations: 203 F. App'x 154
Docket Number: No. 05-71453
Parties: YUE YUN LI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
YUE YUN LI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71453.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.
Filed Oct. 18, 2006.
David Z. Su, Esq., Law Offices of David Z. Su, El Monte, CA, for Petitioner.
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, pro se.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristin K. Edison, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yue Yun Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's adverse credibility finding based on implausible testimony regarding material aspects of petitioner's claim and a failure to provide easily available corroborating evidence. See id. at 1043-45.
Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir .2003).
Because petitioner failed to raise a CAT claim in his opening brief, he waived this claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.