Case Name: Kamlesh CHARAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 116 F. App'x 924
Docket Number: No. 03-70207
Parties: Kamlesh CHARAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 116
Pages: 924–925

Head Matter:
Kamlesh CHARAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70207.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, William Campbell Erb, Jr., Attorney, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral'argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kamlesh Charan, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's conclusion that Charan no longer has a well-founded fear of future persecution in Fiji, because the IJ rationally construed the country conditions reports in the record and made an individualized analysis of the effect of the changed conditions on Charan. See id. at 1000-01.
Charan's remaining contentions lack merit.
Charan's request that the panel take administrative notice of country conditions in Fiji in 2000 is denied.
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.