
    Prem Chand LAL; Rachael Pushpanjali Lal; Naveel Lal, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72882.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed: March 30, 2011.
    Charles E. Nichol, Law Offices of Charles E. Nichol, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Susan Bennett Green, Trial, Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, 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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Prem Chand Lai, Rachael Pushpanjali Lai, and Naveel Lai, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners’ experiences in Fiji, including stoning of the family home, and a beating and robbery suffered by Prem Chand Lai in 1987, did not constitute persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners failed to establish they have a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1154; see also Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395-96 (9th Cir.1996) (record evidence did not compel finding that petitioner’s fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because petitioners failed to demonstrate they were eligible for asylum, they necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Nahrvani, 399 F.3d at 1154.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Fiji. See id.

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