Case Name: Ishri PRASAD, 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 657
Docket Number: Nos. 02-73000, A77-431-763
Parties: Ishri PRASAD, 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: 657–658

Head Matter:
Ishri PRASAD, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 02-73000, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
Decided Aug. 13, 2004.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David M. McConnell, Julia K. Doig, 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
Ishri Prasad, an Indo-Fijian, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's denial of asylum, because a review of the record does not compel a determination that Prasad suffered persecution on account of an enumerated ground. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).
By failing to qualify for asylum, Prasad necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).
This court lacks jurisdiction to review whether Prasad is entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture, because he never raised this claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (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.