Case Name: Sujeewa Sampath WEWALAGE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-02
Citations: 302 F. App'x 648
Docket Number: No. 04-71582
Parties: Sujeewa Sampath WEWALAGE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 648–649

Head Matter:
Sujeewa Sampath WEWALAGE, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71582.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
Markandu S. Vigneswaran, Law Offices of Markandu S. Vigneswaran, Hacienda Heights, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, Ca, OIL DOJ, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sujeewa Sampath Wewalage, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that the harm Wewalage suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995). In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Wewalage's fear of persecution is undercut by the continued presence of his similarly-situated, unharmed family members, see Hakeem, 273 F.3d at 816, and the BIA's conclusion that Wewalage did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003).
Because Wewalage failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he further failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Wewalage has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Sri Lanka. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.