
    YANG CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71405.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
    Thomas Ogden, Counsel, Law Offices of Thomas Ogden, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, 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: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Chen’s request for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yang Chen, 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 decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Chen contends the police persecuted him based on an actual and/or imputed political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Chen failed to show a protected ground was at least one central reason for the harm he suffered or fears suffering upon return. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); cf. Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1018-19 (9th Cir.2011) (IJ’s conclusion not supported by substantial evidence where police accused petitioner of acting against the government and Communist party). We reject Chen’s contention that the BIA failed to consider whether he was harmed on account of his actual political opinion. Accordingly, Chen’s claim for asylum fails.

Because Chen failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

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