Case Name: Darshan KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-30
Citations: 108 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 03-72390
Parties: Darshan KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
Darshan KAUR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72390.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 30, 2004.
Robert B. Jobe, Esq., Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner. Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Under the substantial evidence standard, we cannot say Darshan Kaur's testimony would compel the conclusion that she was persecuted in the past or has a well-founded fear of future persecution should she return to India. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1019-20 (9th Cir.2003); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Accordingly, we deny her petition for review of her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 655 (9th Cir.2000) (failure to establish asylum eligibility means petitioner cannot meet more stringent withholding requirement).
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.