Poley
Poley v. Holder
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Michael Poley, a native of Belarus and a citizen of Israel, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even taken cumulatively, the mistreatment and harassment Poley suffered in Belarus and Israel did not rise to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995). Further, because Poley’s fears of returning to Israel are speculative, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Poley failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 .
Because Poley 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).