Case Name: Ksenia GOROKHOVA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-19
Citations: 235 F. App'x 440
Docket Number: No. 05-75417
Parties: Ksenia GOROKHOVA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 440–440

Head Matter:
Ksenia GOROKHOVA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75417.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007.
Filed July 19, 2007.
Ksenia Gorokhova, San Diego, CA, pro se.
James R. Patterson, Law Office of Lilia S. Velasquez, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Shahrzad Baghai, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ksenia Gorokhova, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order, summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision. Gorokhova's experiences in Russia do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003). She also failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, Gorokhova is not eligible for asylum.
Because Gorokhova failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d, 336, 340-41 (9th Cir.1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cír. R. 36-3.