
    Luis MATIAS-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72021.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Nov. 26, 2013.
    Steven Arthur Seick, Steven A. Seick, Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sunah Lee, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Matias-Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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. Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 836 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The agency found that Matias-Garcia suffered past persecution, but his presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his actual or imputed political opinion was rebutted by evidence in the record of changed country conditions. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 998-99. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Matias-Garcia does not have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his status as an indigenous person. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995) (evidence of discrimination insufficient to show well-founded fear of persecution).

Because Matias-Garcia has not established eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (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.
     