FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 17 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THANT CHIT MIN, No. 08-71454
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-356-406
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Thant Chit Min, a native and citizen of Myanmar (formerly known as
Burma), petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018-
19 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Min suffered past
persecution based on being detained once, hit five times, and told to cease his
activities. See id. at 1020-21 (petitioner did not establish past persecution where
the petitioner was arrested and detained for three days, interrogated, and struck
with a rod ten times). Further, the record does not compel the conclusion that Min
demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution in Burma. See id. at 1021-
22. Accordingly, Min’s asylum claim fails.
Because Min failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Min failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if
returned to Burma. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-71454