Venslovaite
Venslovaite v. Holder
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Jurgita Venslovaite and her husband, natives and citizens of Lithuania, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“13”) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum because the two attacks on Venslovaite did not rise to the level of past persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003), and she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, see Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (fear of future persecution too speculative where petitioner failed to substantiate claim that government unable or unwilling to control the people that harassed her).
Because Venslovaite failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent requirements for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 .