Case Name: Pacita CABRERA CO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-18
Citations: 151 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 04-71259
Parties: Pacita CABRERA CO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 151
Pages: 535–535

Head Matter:
Pacita CABRERA CO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71259.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
Decided Oct. 18, 2005.
Rodel E. Rodis, Esq., Law Offices of Rodel E. Rodis, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: T.G. NELSON, WARDLAW, 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
Pacita Cabrera Co, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and may reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision that petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was eligible for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999).
Petitioner also fails to establish a CAT claim because she did not show that it was more likely than not that she would be tortured if she was returned to the Philippines. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.2001).
PETITION 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.