
    Baba KABA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70605.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2011.
    Bakary Fansu Conteh, Esquire, Law Office of Bakary Fansu Conteh, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    
      Dana Michelle Camilleri, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Baba Kaba, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “This court reviews factual determinations, including credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that circumstances in Sierra Leone have fundamentally changed such that Kaba does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1); Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285-87 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Kaba’s asylum claim.

Because Kaba failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Kaba failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of government officials if returned to Sierra Leone. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir.2009). We therefore deny the petition as to his CAT claim.

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