Case Name: Toledo DOMINGO-FELIPE, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States; Department of Homeland Security, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-19
Citations: 184 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 05-1721
Parties: Toledo DOMINGO-FELIPE, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States; Department of Homeland Security, Respondents.
Judges: Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 589–589

Head Matter:
Toledo DOMINGO-FELIPE, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States; Department of Homeland Security, Respondents.
No. 05-1721.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 14, 2006.
Filed: June 19, 2006.
Bart A. Chavez, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner.
Jan Leslie Holmgren, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, Richard M. Evans, Thomas W. Hussey, Emily Anne Radford, Susan K. Houser, Karen Drummond, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Lori Scialabba, U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review, Falls Church, VA, for Respondents.
Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Guatemalan citizen Toledo Domingo-Felipe petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which summarily affirmed an Immigration Judge's (IJ's) denial of asylum and withholding of removal.
After careful review of the record, we conclude the IJ's decision, that Domingo-Felipe failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Eta-Ndu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review). Because Domingo-Felipe failed to meet the burden of proof on his asylum claim, his application for withholding of removal necessarily fails as well. See Turay v. Ashcroft, 405 F.3d 663, 667 (8th Cir.2005) (withholding-of-removal standard is more rigorous than asylum standard).
Accordingly, we deny the petition.
. The IJ's decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for purposes of judicial review. See Kimumwe v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 319, 322 (8th Cir.2005).