
    Wancheng ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72616.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Filed June 17, 2005.
    Charles J. Kinnunen, Esq., Hagatna, GU, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Hagatna, GU, John J. Andre, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wancheng Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Zhang contends the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Because Zhang failed to challenge the IJ’s adverse credibility finding on appeal to the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider Zhang’s petition. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) (dismissing petition challenging an adverse credibility finding where credibility was not exhausted in appeal to BIA).

To the extent Zhang challenges the BIA’s June 29, 2004 order denying his motion to reconsider, we lack jurisdiction because Zhang failed to file a separate petition seeking review of that order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     