
    Balasan KUREGHYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70655.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 28, 2005.
    James L. Rosenberg, Esq., Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., Earle B. Wilson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Balasan Kureghyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Kureghyan contends that the IJ erred in applying an incorrect burden of proof to her case. The record belies this contention. Substantial evidence supports the Id’s conclusion that Kureghyan failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000); Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2000).

Because Kureghyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (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.
     