                                                                            FILED
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           OCT 03 2014

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


CHUAN GANG WANG,                                  No. 13-70632

               Petitioner,                        Agency No. A099-885-037

  v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.


                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted September 23, 2014**

Before:        W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

       Chuan Gang Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for


          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
substantial evidence the factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056

(9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Wang’s asylum claim

because Wang failed to provide sufficient evidence to corroborate his claim of

persecution in China. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093-1094 (9th Cir.

2011) (upholding conclusion petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof where he

was given notice of required corroboration and opportunity to obtain the evidence

or explain his failure to do so). We reject Wang’s contention that the BIA violated

his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

      Because Wang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of

removal claim necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190

(9th Cir. 2006).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                    13-70632
