Baluyot

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Erlinda Baluyot appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s order denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and voluntary departure.

First, Baluyot argues that the BIA abused its discretion in finding that she did not establish a “well-founded fear” of persecution. Neither Baluyot’s fear of a perceived general climate of political violence in the Philippines, nor her experience as a bank employee during the two robbery incidents, qualifies her for asylum. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001); Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 *623 F.2d 1571, 1581 (9th Cir.1986). Because Baluyot has failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution on account of one of the enumerated grounds, see INA § 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A), we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her petition for asylum. We also conclude that Baluyot does not meet the requirements for mandatory withholding of removal, INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3), because an alien who fails to establish a “well-founded fear” of persecution will, by definition, fail to show a…