Seng

MEMORANDUM **

Puthy Seng, a native and citizen of Cambodia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance without opinion of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her *103 applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . When the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s denial of eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Seng failed to establish past persecution because there is no evidence that the Khmer Rouge’s actions were even partly motivated by an enumerated ground. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 736-37 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (holding that “extortion plus” is necessary to support a claim of asylum).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Seng failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because Seng acknowledges that the Khmer Rouge is no…