
    Jatinder SUDAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70003.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    Tsz-Hai Huang, Hardeep Singh Rai, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Arthur L. Rabin, Karen Y. Stewart, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, 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

Jatinder Sudan, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sudan’s experiences, including one beating, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Sudan failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Sudan’s asylum claim fails.

Because Sudan failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Sudan did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the Indian government. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir.2007).

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