
    Edy Selamet KELIAT, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72670.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2014.
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    Kimberly A. Burdge, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edy Selamet Keliat, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including whether an applicant has met his burden of proof, Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency denied Keliat’s claim for withholding of removal because he failed to corroborate fundamental aspects of his claim — including, the burning of his store, his two hospitalizations after beatings, and his report to the police — and he failed to reasonably explain his failure to do so. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. See id. at 1089-94 (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 Keliat’s contentions that he met his burden of proof without the corroborating evidence the IJ requested. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b) (1) (B )(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C); Ren, 648 F.3d at 1094.

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