
    MENGYA HUANG, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70830
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    FILED August 1, 2016
    Mengya Huang, Monterey Park, CA, Pro Se.
    Janette L. Allen, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mengya Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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, 1089-91 (9th Cir. 2011), and we deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Huang references in and attaches to her opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Huang did not sufficiently corroborate her claim. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not compel the conclusion that petitioner’s corroborative evidence satisfied his burden of proof). Further, the BIA reasonably rejected her explanations as to why she could not obtain corroborating evidence. See Ren, 648 F.3d at 1092 n.12. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Huang’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. See Aden, 589 F.3d at 1046-47.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     