Case Name: Jimenez VILCAPOMA Vilcapoma, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 89 F. App'x 97
Docket Number: No. 02-74245; Agency No. A70-864-919
Parties: Jimenez VILCAPOMA Vilcapoma, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 97–98

Head Matter:
Jimenez VILCAPOMA Vilcapoma, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-74245.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
Raul R. Labrador, Labrador Law Offices, Nampa, ID, for Petitioner.
Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Helena, MT, Earle B. Wilson, Efthimia S. Pilitsis, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, 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
Jimenez Vilcapoma Vilcapoma, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision summarily affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Vilcapoma demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in Peru. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995).
Because Vilcapoma failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I dissent.
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.