Rusila Vakasereimudu Sevudredre v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUSILA VAKASEREIMUDU
SEVUDREDRE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-75172
Agency No. A098-158-796
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Rusila Vakasereimudu Sevudredre, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
FILED
JUL 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-75172 2
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Sevudredre’s asylum
claim because the harm she suffered, including threats and a robbery, does not rise
to the level of past persecution, and because she failed to demonstrate an objective
basis for her fear of future persecution. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40
(9th Cir. 1995); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Sevudredre did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily
follows that she 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 also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Sevudredre did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by government officials, or with their acquiescence, if returned to Fiji. See
Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068. Sevudredre’s contentions that the agency failed to
meaningfully address her CAT claim and that it applied an erroneous legal
standard are belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --