
    Maria Rita Socorro BALTASAR, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72166.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
    Steve J. Rodriguez, Esq., Prashanthi Rangan, Korenberg, Abramowitz & Feldun, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Brenda M. O’Malley, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Petitioner’s April 15, 2003 motion to submit case for decision without oral argument is denied as moot.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Rita Socorro Baltasar, native and citizen of the Philippines, appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision to affirm without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We review for substantial evidence, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Baltasar contends that she was subjected to persecution in the Philippines and that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution if returned. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Baltasar’s experience did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (stating unfulfilled threats “constitute harassment rather than persecution”); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a petitioner who received numerous death threats and whose colleagues were murdered by the military did not suffer past persecution); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995) (finding general lawlessness is insufficient to support a claim of persecution).

Because Baltasar failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Baltasar’s contention that the BIA’s streamlining procedure violates due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003).

Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897, 900 (9th Cir.2004) (order), petitioner’s voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court’s mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     