
    Aramayis SHAHBAZYAN; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71519.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 8, 2011.
    Asbet Issakhanian, Law Offices of Asbet A. Issakhanian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Joanna L. Watson, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aramayis Shahbazyan and his family, natives of Iran and citizens of Armenia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 BIA’s finding that the brief detention and mistreatment Shahbazyan suffered in Armenia did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-20 (9th Cir.2006). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners do not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on their Seventh Day Adventist religion. See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.2002) (“[T]he IJ and the BIA are entitled to rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”).

Because petitioners did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily follows that they did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, petitioners’ contention that CAT relief was denied solely on the basis of an adverse credibility determination is belied by the record. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the petitioners are not eligible for CAT relief. See Waklcary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     