381 F. App'x 968

11th Cir.

2010

Jesse Cole COCHRAN, Danielle M. Cochran, individually and as next friends and natural guardians of their son, Austin Cochran, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE BRINKMANN CORPORATION, Defendant-Third Party-Plaintiff-Appellee, Roy Cochran, Rena Cochran, Third Party-Defendant.

No. 09-16505

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 9, 2010.

968

Before CARNES, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Non-Argument Calendar.

Chen has not satisfied the less stringent standard for establishing asylum eligibility, his claims for withholding of removal under the INA and CAT relief necessarily fail. See Zheng, 451 F.3d at 1292; see also Forgue, 401 F.3d at 1288 n. 4 (noting that where a petitioner “fail[s] to establish a claim of asylum on the merits, he necessarily fails to establish eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under CAT“).

III. CONCLUSION

Chen petitions us for review of the BIA‘s dismissal of his appeal from the IJ‘s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Because the evidence does not compel a finding that Chen has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his violation of family planning laws or his involvement with Falun Gong, we DENY the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Jesse Cole Cochran and Danielle M. Cochran appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Brinkmann Corporation on the Cochrans’ product liability claim. Appellants also appeal two other decisions of the district court: (1) excluding the late-filed supplemental reports of appellants’ expert and (2) ruling the affidavit of another expert, David Brani, to be non-admissible.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court‘s exclusion of the supplemental reports. Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors, Corp., 446 F.3d 1137, 1146-46 (11th Cir. 2006). We review the court‘s determination that the Brani affidavit was not admissible for abuse of discretion as well. GE v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 138-39, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). Finally, we review the entry of summary judgment de novo. Dietz v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 598 F.3d 812, 815 (11th Cir. 2010).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. There was no abuse of discretion in the district court‘s exclusion of the supplemental reports as they were not timely filed and no adequate reason for the late filing was given. Likewise, there was no abuse of discretion in excluding the Brani affidavit because it was submitted solely to support the claims of the excluded late-filed reports.

Because, as the district court concluded, these two evidentiary rulings left appellants with “no admissible evidence of alternative safer designs for the fryer in this litigation” and “[p]laintiffs have failed to offer reliable, admissible expert testimony or other evidence of an alternative design,” we can find no error in the court‘s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Brinkmann Corporation.

AFFIRMED.