Court Opinion

ID: 8607251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 04:24:47.340336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:17.375401
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Chander Prakash, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“LJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition in part, grant in part, and remand.
*703Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that Prakash failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on ethnic Fijians threatening him to leave his house, difficulties finding work in Fiji, and an incident in which an ethnic Fijian punched him. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995) (finding no past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution where the petitioner was arrested, detained for four to six hours, beaten, and private citizens threw stones at his house and attempted to steal property).
Because Prakash failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir.2004).
The IJ granted voluntary departure for a 60-day period and the BIA streamlined and changed the voluntary departure period to 30 days. In Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 972, 981 (9th Cir.2006), we held “that because the BIA issued a streamlined order, it was required to affirm the entirety of the IJ’s decision, including the length of the voluntary departure period.” We therefore remand to the agency for further proceedings regarding voluntary departure.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; and REMANDED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.