
    Mukunda BASTAKOTI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72983.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 20, 2013.
    Jose A. Bracamonte, Law Offices of Jose A. Bracamonte, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Christina J. Martin, Esquire, Oil, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mukunda Bastakoti, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 findings of fact for substantial evidence, see Shrestha v.Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if credible, Bastakoti failed to establish that the threats, attempted extortion, and assault he experienced rose to the level of past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (“Our court generally treats unfulfilled threats, without more, as within that category of conduct indicative of a danger of future persecution, rather than as past persecution itself’). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Bastakoti did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2008). As a result, Bastakoti’s asylum claim fails.

Because Bastakoti failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir .2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because Bastakoti failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to Nepal. See Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1053-54 (9th Cir.2011).

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