Case Name: Gevine Gabriella TENDEAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-24
Citations: 265 F. App'x 517
Docket Number: No. 04-76621
Parties: Gevine Gabriella TENDEAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 517–517

Head Matter:
Gevine Gabriella TENDEAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76621.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008 .
Filed Jan. 24, 2008.
Kaaren L. Barr, Esq., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gevine Gabriella Tendean, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). 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 relief because petitioner failed to demonstrate that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998). Furthermore, petitioner failed to establish that the record compels a finding that members of her religion are subject to a pattern or practice of persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180-81 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).
Because petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Singh, 134 F.3d at 971.
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ's denial of relief under CAT. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.