
    Sayeed SHAWKAT, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71854.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2004.
    
    Decided July 19, 2004.
    Reynold E. Finnegan, Esq., Finnegan & Diba, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sayeed Shawkat, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because the transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner failed to establish past persecution based on the attack on his house. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995).

Despite petitioner’s credible testimony, substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner could not establish an objective fear of persecution because of the changed country conditions in Bangladesh. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir.2003).

Because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir.2001).

Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2004) (order), petitioner’s voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court’s mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     