Kostyantyn Oleksandrovych BULANOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 589 F. App'x 377

MEMORANDUM Kostyantyn Oleksandrovych Bulanov petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. “Where, as here, the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law, ‘our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.’ ” Antonyan v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting Hosseini v.

Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir.2006)). “We will ‘reverse the BIA’s decision that an applicant is ineligible for asylum only if a reasonable fact-finder would have to conclude that the requisite fear of persecution existed.’ ” Nagoulko v. I.N.S., 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Chand v. INS, 222 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2000)). 1.Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bulanov failed to establish past persecution. His experiences, and those of his family and his churches, individually or collectively, do not compel the conclusion that Bulanov suffered past persecution.

See id. at 1016-18. 2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bulanov failed to established a well-founded fear of future persecution. Even in the case of conscientious objectors, “forced conscription or punishment for evasion of military duty generally does not constitute persecution.” Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1187 (9th Cir.2006). Further, Bulanov presented no evidence that would compel the conclusion that the Ukranian government “would target him for conscription or punishment on account of his religion.” Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.2005).

Bulanov also pointed to no “ ‘credible, direct, and specific evidence’ ” that would compel the conclusion that he will be persecuted on account of his religion independently of conscription or punishment for evasion. Rusak v. Holder, 734 F.3d 894, 896 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting Duarte de Guinac v. INS, 179 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir.1999)). 3. Because the standard for withholding is “more stringent than the well-founded fear standard governing asylum,” Bula-nov also fails to qualify for withholding. Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (internal quotation marks omitted). 4.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bulanov “has not shown past torture or established that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured in the future by or with the acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity for the Ukranian government.” See Go v. Holder, 640 F.Sd 1047, 1054 (9th Cir.2011). PETITION DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.