Case Name: Santiago Cristobal ZARATE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 225 F. App'x 545
Docket Number: No. 05-70319
Parties: Santiago Cristobal ZARATE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 545–546

Head Matter:
Santiago Cristobal ZARATE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70319.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Charles E. Nichol, Esq., Law Office of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Susan Lindquist, Esq., San Francisco, CA, Susan Lindquist, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Federal Bldg. & U.S. Courthouse, Anchorage, AK, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Santiago Cristobal Zarate, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") order pretermitting his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, San-gha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of asylum because even if all of the claims made in Zarate's asylum application and proffered by his attorney were accepted, he did not state a basis for asylum. See id. at 1486 (stating the statutory requirement that persecution must be on account of an enumerated ground).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.