
    Gerard Sumalangcay ARCALES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71148.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007.
    
    Filed April 18, 2007.
    Richard M. Victorio, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gerard Sumalangcay Arcales, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Arcales failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because he failed to show any evidence that his attackers were motivated by any enumerated ground. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir.1999); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Because Arcales did not establish that he was eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir.2001).

Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Arcales did not establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to the Philippines. See Mamouzian v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1129, 1139 (9th Cir.2004).

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