Case Name: Nazrul Suleman NISHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-14
Citations: 234 F. App'x 626
Docket Number: No. 06-70522
Parties: Nazrul Suleman NISHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
Nazrul Suleman NISHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70522.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007 .
Filed June 14, 2007.
Judith Lott, Newark, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kristen Byrnes Floom, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Div., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nazrul Suleman Nisha, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have ju risdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision because Nisha did not demonstrate an objective, well-founded fear of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d at 1245 (stating that general claims of broader ethnic tension across Fijian society do not establish statutory persecution). Accordingly, Nisha is not eligible for asylum.
Because Nisha failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d at 340.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.