
    Sunil PRAKASH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73143.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 18, 2007.
    Filed Jan. 14, 2008.
    Judith Lott, Newark, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Marianne A. Pansa, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Russell J.E. Verby, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR , Senior Judge.
    
      
       Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Sunil Prakash seeks judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum. “To reverse [a] BIA finding [a reviewing court] must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it....” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Applying the standard from Elias-Zacarias, we are not compelled to find that the petitioner suffered past persecution or that he reasonably fears future persecution. The immigration judge’s decision and the record demonstrate that the judge reviewed all the evidence and used the correct legal standard. Substantial evidence supports the findings that Prakash failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

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