
    Anna Cecilila PORTILLO-DE MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72378.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    Michael S. Cabrera, Esq., Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Peter H. Matson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. 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

Anna Cecilila Portillo-de Mendoza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Portillo-de Mendoza did not establish past persecution because the harassment and groping that she suffered at the hands of gang members in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution. See Prasad, v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Portillo-de Mendoza failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because her similarly situated immediate family members continue to reside in El Salvador without significant harm. See Aruta v. INS, 80 F.3d 1389, 1395-96 (9th Cir.1996).

Because Portillo-de Mendoza 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).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because Portillo-de Mendoza failed to establish that it is more likely than not she will be tortured if she returns to El Salvador. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

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