Case Name: Batukram Anandram HARIYANI; Ranjanben Hariyani, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-13
Citations: 125 F. App'x 902
Docket Number: Nos. 03-70470, A72-117-959, A72-118-120
Parties: Batukram Anandram HARIYANI; Ranjanben Hariyani, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 902–903

Head Matter:
Batukram Anandram HARIYANI; Ranjanben Hariyani, Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 03-70470, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2005.
Decided April 13, 2005.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., John S. Hogan, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Batukram Anandram 'Hariyani and his wife, Ranjanben Hariyani, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of their requests for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA's decision on whether the petitioner has established eligibility for asylum under the substantial evidence standard. See Hasan v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998)). We review questions of law regarding the Immigration and Nationality Act under the de novo standard. Singh v. Ilchert, 69 F.3d 375, 378 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We deny the petition.
After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the BIA that Hariyani failed to demonstrate past persecution on account of a qualifying ground for asylum or withholding of removal. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2004).
We do not consider Hariyani's Convention Against Torture claim because he failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
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.
. Ms. Hariyani claims refugee status derivatively if asylum is granted to Mr. Hariyani.