Case Name: CHANG HAO XU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-19
Citations: 227 F. App'x 692
Docket Number: No. 06-70874
Parties: CHANG HAO XU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 692–693

Head Matter:
CHANG HAO XU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70874.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 19, 2007.
Jisheng Li, Esq., Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Audrey B. Hemesath, Esq., San Francisco, CA, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Paul Fiorino, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration ' Lit., Washington, DC, District Director, Office of the District Director, Hagatna, GU, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chang Hao Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") upholding an Immigration Judge's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 862 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition for review.
Because Xu was not mistreated by the Chinese government, and fails to show that the government would impute a political opinion to him, his asylum claim fails. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).
Because Xu failed to establish that he was eligible for asylum, he necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.