Rani

MEMORANDUM **

Veena Rani, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration *577 Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny review.

DISCUSSION

To establish her eligibility for asylum, Rani was required to prove she suffered past persecution or she has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). To qualify for withholding of removal, she had to demonstrate it is more likely than not that she would be subjected to persecution if she returned to India. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir.2007). CAT relief required her to establish it would be more likely than not that she would be tortured with the acquiescence of the Indian government upon her return. See Muradin v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1208, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2007).

Rani claims she satisfied these burdens because she was persecuted and tortured in India as a result of her husband’s political activities. Specifically, she testified her husband was arrested twice by police and…