Case Name: Bashir AHMED, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-18
Citations: 97 F. App'x 196
Docket Number: No. 02-72865
Parties: Bashir AHMED, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Bashir AHMED, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72865.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 18, 2004.
Bashir Ahmed, Canoga Park, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The. court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Bashir Ahmed, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. INS, 340 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.2003), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that Ahmed did not suffer past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir.2003).
By failing to qualify for asylum, Ahmed 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).
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.