Lapuste
Lapuste v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Gheorghe Lapuste and Maria Maneula Bogdanescu, husband and wife, and natives and citizens of Romania, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review findings of fact for substantial evidence, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny in part, grant in part, and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that evidence of changed country conditions in Romania rebutted any presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution and Lapuste is therefore not eligible for asylum. See Marcu v. INS, 147 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir.1998). It follows that Lapuste failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). Lapuste’s CAT claim fails because he did not show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Romania. Id.