Case Name: Ghayoor KHAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-03
Citations: 299 F. App'x 648
Docket Number: No. 04-76583
Parties: Ghayoor KHAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 648–650

Head Matter:
Ghayoor KHAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76583.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 3, 2008.
Alison Dixon, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., David M. McConnell, John L. Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ghayoor Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that Khan has not demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution, where the record contains insufficient direct or specific evidence that he is being targeted for harm. See Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2000). Further, Khan has not shown that harm experienced by his family members creates "a pattern of persecution closely tied" to himself. See Arriagar-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991).
Because Khan failed to show eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the more strict requirements for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's finding that Khan has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Pakistan. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.