
    GUOHUA TAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71956.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 16, 2007.
    
    Filed May 24, 2007.
    
      Elsie Hui Arias, Esq., Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Peter T. Weehsler, Esq., San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guohua Tan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Tan testified that his wife was forced to undergo sterilization, but he failed to mention this in his asylum application. Because this omission is material and goes to the heart of Tan’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See id.

Tan therefore failed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding denials of withholding and CAT where claims are based on same evidence as asylum claim).

We lack jurisdiction to review Tan’s due process claim because he did not raise it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION REVIEW DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     