Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Alien petitioned for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal challenging denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported determination that alien would not be subjected to a disproportionately severe punishment in his native China for his illegal departure, and thus was not eligible for grant of asylum and withholding of deportation.
Petition denied. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Tsi Fiung Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's order denying his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because the transitional rules apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), see Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1195 n. 4 (9th Cir.2000). We review for substantial evidence the BIA's findings that Liu has not established eligibility for asylum. Id. We deny Liu's petition for review.
Because substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Liu will not be subjected to a disproportionately severe punishment for his illegal departure, Liu is not eligible for asylum. See Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir.1996) (indicating that criminal prosecution for illegal departure is not considered persecution).
Because Liu failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard required for withholding of deportation. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 961 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.