Case Name: David YURIANTO; Diana Wati, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-29
Citations: 276 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 04-75253
Parties: David YURIANTO; Diana Wati, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 562–562

Head Matter:
David YURIANTO; Diana Wati, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75253.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed April 29, 2008.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
David Yurianto and his wife, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that the harm Yurianto suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution. See id. at 1016-18. Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Yurianto failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See id. at 1018.
Because Yurianto failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Yurianto is not entitled to CAT relief. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.