Case Name: Tatiana Vladimirovna KOLODZEVA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-13
Citations: 308 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 03-74755
Parties: Tatiana Vladimirovna KOLODZEVA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 308
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Tatiana Vladimirovna KOLODZEVA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74755.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 13, 2009.
Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, therefore Kolodzeva’s request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tatiana Vladimirovna Kolodzeva, native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Russia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that, taking Kolodzeva's testimony as true, she failed meet her burden of establishing past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Kolodzeva's asylum claim fails.
Because Kolodzeva did not establish asylum eligibility, 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.