Case Name: Subamma Tara NAIDU, aka Tarawati, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-14
Citations: 206 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 05-75717
Parties: Subamma Tara NAIDU, aka Tarawati, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
Subamma Tara NAIDU, aka Tarawati, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75717.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
Filed Nov. 14, 2006.
Alan M. Kaufman, Esq., Kaufman Law Office, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Thankful T. Vanderstar, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Subamma Tara Naidu, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order adopting and affirming an immigration judge's order denying Naidu's applications 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, Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 524 (9th Cir.2006), and deny the petition for review.
Naidu, an ethnic Indian and Hindu, testified that in 1983 unidentified native Fijians threw rocks at her house and stole three goats from her property. Naidu also testified that her children continued to experience mistreatment in Fiji after she arrived in the United States in 1986. Contrary to Naidu's contention, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that the 1983 incident was motivated, even in part, by a statutorily protected ground, or that she has an objectively reasonable fear of being persecuted in the future. See id. at 524-25.
Because Naidu failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. Id.
Naidu does not challenge the agency's denial of relief under the CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.