FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 30 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PREM CHAND LAL; RACHAEL No. 09-72882
PUSHPANJALI LAL; NAVEEL LAL,
Agency Nos. A071-625-646
Petitioners, A071-625-647
A071-625-649
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
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.
Prem Chand Lal, Rachael Pushpanjali Lal, and Naveel Lal, natives and
citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
*
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).
1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148,
1151 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners’
experiences in Fiji, including stoning of the family home, and a beating and
robbery suffered by Prem Chand Lal in 1987, did not constitute persecution. See
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d
336, 339-40 (9th Cir. 1995). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that petitioners failed to establish they have a well-founded fear of
persecution. See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1154; see also Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389,
1395-96 (9th Cir. 1996) (record evidence did not compel finding that petitioner’s
fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable). Accordingly, petitioners’
asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to demonstrate they were eligible for asylum, they
necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1154.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured if
returned to Fiji. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 09-72882