Shoufang Jiang v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHOUFANG JIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72438
Agency No. A088-294-693
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Shoufang Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72438
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings, applying the standards created by the REAL ID Act. Ren v.
Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Jiang failed to
provide sufficient reasonably obtainable corroborative evidence to meet his burden
of proof. See id. at 1093-94 (denying petition where asylum applicant failed to
provide corroborative evidence requested by the IJ). We reject Jiang’s contention
that he was denied an opportunity to explain his failure to corroborate. See id. at
1094. Thus, Jiang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id.
Further, substantial evidence supports the denial of Jiang’s CAT claim
because he did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to
consider Jiang’s religion-based contentions because he did not exhaust them before
the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --