
    Magdalena Pambid VALEROS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73010.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 17, 2005.
    Anthony Nwosu, Law Offices of Anthony Nwosu, Emeryville, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, James E. Grimes, Esq., Margaret Perry, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Magdalena Pambid Valeros, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing the appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s decision and may reverse only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that petitioner failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. Petitioner attended a rally that turned violent and was arrested and detained with many other participants. Because this incident fails to rise to the level of persecution, and petitioner offers no other evidence of persecution based on an enumerated ground, substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995).

Because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999).

In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of relief under CAT. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     