Case ID: f-appx_386/html/0703-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rusila Vakasereimudu SEVUDREDRE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-75172.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 9, 2010.
    Alison L. Dixon, Law Office of Alison Dixon, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mary Lee Quinn, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rusila Vakasereimudu Sevudredre, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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 factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Sevudredre’s asylum claim because the harm she suffered, including threats and a robbery, does not rise to the level of past persecution, and because she failed to demonstrate an objective basis for her fear of future persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Sevudredre did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Se-vudredre did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by government officials, or with their acquiescence, if returned to Fiji. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068. Sevudredre’s contentions that the agency failed to meaningfully address her CAT claim and that it applied an erroneous legal standard are belied by the record.

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