
    Ziad A. HUSEIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72577.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2010.
    Elias Z. Shamieh, Esq., Law Offices of Elias Z. Shamieh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stephen J. Flynn, Esq., Karen Y. Stewart, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ziad A. Husein, a native of Palestine and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 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, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Even if Husein’s asylum application was timely, substantial evidence supports the Id’s finding that the threats Husein received from Muslim fundamentalists did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir.1997) (persecutors’ actions must be motivated by imputed political opinion). Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Because Husein failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Husein failed to establish it was more likely than not he would be tortured if he returned to Jordan. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

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