Case Name: Ligia BUJOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-19
Citations: 235 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: No. 06-73975
Parties: Ligia BUJOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
Ligia BUJOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73975.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007 .
Filed July 19, 2007.
Philip James Smith, Esq., Hecht & Smith, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Portland, OR, Thomas Fatouros, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ligia Bujor, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order, adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision. Bujor's experiences in Romania do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003). She also failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995). Accordingly, Bujor is not eligible for asylum.
Because Bujor 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 336, 340-41 (9th Cir.1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.