for asylum. This court previously affirmed the BIA’s decision that Veksler failed to establish past persecution, and remanded for a determination of whether he had established a well-founded fear of future persecution. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Veksler failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his Jewish heritage. In order to establish a well-founded fear, a petitioner cannot simply show that there exists a generalized possibility of persecution; he must show that he is at particular risk. Compare Mgoian v. INS, 184 F.3d 1029, 1035 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) with Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 970 (9th
holding that no wellfounded fear was established where the attacks on family members failed to show a pattern of persecution tied to the petitioners holding that an applicants wellfounded fear claim was speculative at best when he failed to present solid support that he would be persecuted for violating family planning policy upon his return to china holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions holding that where similarly situated family members continued to live in aliens native country claim of future harm was diminished holding that wellfounded fear was established where all of petitioners similarly situated family members were persecuted