
    Hugo Cesar AVILA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70079.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 4, 2014.
    Henry Cruz, Rios & Cruz, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Jennifer Paisner Williams, Colette Jabes Winston, Esquire, DOJ, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, 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

Hugo Cesar Avila-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Avila-Hernandez contends his mother’s abusive ex-boyfriend will persecute him if he returns to Mexico. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Avila-Hernandez did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of persecution was too speculative”). We reject Avila-Hernandez’s contention that the agency did not consider the entire record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006) (petitioner did not overcome presumption agency reviewed record). In light of our conclusion, we do not reach Avila-Hernandez’s contentions regarding the agency’s time-bar finding. Thus, his asylum claim fails.

Because Avila-Hernandez failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails.' See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

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