Case Name: Fares Salman Issa AL-SAYEGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-13
Citations: 104 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: Nos. 02-73373, A77-009-091
Parties: Fares Salman Issa AL-SAYEGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
Fares Salman Issa AL-SAYEGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 02-73373, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 13, 2004.
Fares Salman Issa Al-Sayegh, Los An-geles, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fares Salman Issa Al-Sayegh, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of the immigration judge's ("U") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Assuming Al-Sayegh's testimony was credible, substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Al-Sayegh's single encounter with members of the Muslim Brotherhood did not establish eligibility for asylum relief. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015-18 (9th Cir.2003).
Because Al-Sayegh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).
The IJ properly denied relief under CAT because Al-Sayegh failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if removed to Jordan. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).
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.