
    Victor Memido BALOGUN, AKA Victor Balogun, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70703
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 24, 2016
    Lori Beth Schoenberg, Attorney, Law Offices of Lori B. Schoenberg, Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner.
    Aric Allan Anderson, 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, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Balogun, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if Balogun is Christian, he failed to establish past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution on account of his Christianity. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003) (evidence did not compel a finding that it was more probable than not that petitioner would be persecuted). Thus, Balogun’s withholding of removal claim fails.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Balo-gun’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights with respect to corroboration of his Christian beliefs because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

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