
    Claris AROJIAN, aka Klarik Vartanian, aka Klarik Orogian, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
    No. 08-74691.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 6, 2013.
    Filed May 13, 2013.
    Artem M. Sarian, Esquire, Sarian Law Group, APLC, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Matthew Allan Spurlock, Aimee J. Carmichael, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and GWIN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Claris Arojian petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the cumulative harms that Arojian experienced in Denmark do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir.2009); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Arojian failed to demonstrate that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Halim, 590 F.3d at 977.

Because Arojian failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher burden of proof for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. Arojian failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Danish government if she returns to Denmark. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-38.

Finally, the BIA did not err by concluding that the IJ properly declined to recuse himself during Arojian’s removal proceedings. See Matter of Exame, 18 I. & N. Dec. 303, 306 (BIA 1982).

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