
    Horacio Victorio EMANUELLI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72107.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 28, 2004.
    Gary Finn, Attorney at Law, Indio, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Executive Office of Immigration Review, Office of Immigration Judge, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Michael P. Lindemann, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Mark C. Walters, Stephen J. Flynn, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Horacio Victorio Emanuelli, a native and citizen of Argentina, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’(“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Meza-Manay v. INS, 139 F.3d 759, 762 (9th Cir.1998), and we deny the petition for review.

Even assuming that Emanuelli established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, the IJ properly relied upon a State Department Country Report to determine that conditions in Argentina have changed such that Emanuelli’s fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable. See Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir.2003).

Because Emanuelli failed to establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

Finally, contrary to Emanuelli’s contention, the BIA’s failure to articulate reasons for its decision does not violate due process. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

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 provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     