
    Bernadette Nichols ARCILLA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-74401.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
    
    Decided Jan. 15, 2004.
    Bert M. Vega, Law Office of Bert M. Vega, Vallejo, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Robbin K. Blaya, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, 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.
    
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bernadette Nichols Arcilla, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1997). We review for substantial evidence, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Arcilla did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because the record does not compel the conclusion that the New Peoples’ Army was responsible for the death of Areilla’s husband or the threats Arcilla received. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir.1997) (requiring the persecution to be “on account of’ an enumerated ground).

Because Arcilla did not establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily fails to establish eligibility for withholding of deportation. See Prasad, 47 F.3d at 340.

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