
    Batsaikhan BATMUNKH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72587.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009 .
    April 2, 2009.
    Homayun F. Zadeh, Law Office of Ho-mayun F. Zadeh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Batsaikhan Batmunkh, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that neither the possible withholding of medical treatment to Batmunkh’s father, nor Batmunkh’s failure to be chosen for the music trip to China occurred on account of a protected ground. See id. at 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812 (concluding that the record did not establish persecution was on account of a protected ground). Furthermore, because Batmunkh left Mongolia to avoid mandatory military service, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that he did not establish that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution if he returns to Mongolia. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1187 (9th Cir.2006) (forced conscription or punishment for evasion of military duty generally is not persecution). Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

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