
    Farideh Beygom YAGHOUTI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73080.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007 .
    Filed April 24, 2007.
    Farideh Beygom Yaghouti, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle Lat-our, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Jessica E. Sherman, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Farideh Beygom Yaghouti, a native of Iraq and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision that summarily affirmed the ruling of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where, as here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency action. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir.2006). We review for substantial evidence, Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the single interrogation to which Yaghouti was subjected did not rise to the level of persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995). In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Yaghouti did not establish an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir.2006).

Because Yaghouti failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, she necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir.2004).

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