
    Ashot GHAZARYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72703.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2010.
    Ashot Ghazaryan, Tujunga, CA, pro se.
    Russell John Verby, Trial, 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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ashot Ghazaryan, a native of Armenia and citizen of Argentina, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1055-56 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Ghazaryan did not establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, because he failed to demonstrate the government was unwilling or unable to control the men who beat and threatened him. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Ghazaryan’s asylum claim fails.

Because Ghazaryan did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Ghazaryan’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Argentina. See Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir.2007).

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