religious activities even though they have remained in China. See him, 224 F.3d at 935. Li’s mother even attended the same meetings with Li at the church member’s house. Because Li did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. The IJ applied the incorrect standard in evaluating Li’s application for relief under the Convention. The IJ found that because Li did not meet the standard for asylum eligibility, he necessarily failed to establish the standard for protection under the Convention. This conclusion was in error because the criteria for relief under the Convention are distinct from those for asylum or withholding of removal. See Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). We nonetheless affirm the IJ’s decision
holding that the standard for withholding of removal is more demanding than the standard for asylum holding that when the asylum withholding of removal and cat claims are based on the same factual predicate a credibility ruling necessarily forecloses relief in each holding that claims for relief under the convention are analytically separate from claims for asylum and for withholding of removal recognizing that withholding of removal claims must fail if petitioner is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the claims are based on the same factual predicate holding that where a petitioner fails to establish a claim for asylum on the merits his claims for withholding of removal under the ina and cat also necessarily fail