CHUAN WANG V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-70632 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 03 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHUAN GANG WANG, Petitioner, No. 13-70632 Agency No.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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.