Case Name: QINGRONG JIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-10
Citations: 175 F. App'x 872
Docket Number: No. 04-71391
Parties: QINGRONG JIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 175
Pages: 872–873

Head Matter:
QINGRONG JIANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71391.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Decided April 10, 2006.
Vaughan de Kirby, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark W. Pletcher, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Qingrong Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming without opinion an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's determination that Jiang is statutorily ineligible for asylum based on the one-year time bar. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir.2005).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over Jiang's withholding of removal claim. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir.2000), we deny Jiang's claim.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of withholding of removal because Jiang failed to testify credibly regarding his Falun Gong practices. See id. at 1091.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Jiang's challenge to the denial of CAT relief because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.