
    Baljit KUMAR; Jyoti Sharma, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72289.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2014.
    Abram Bender, Shoreline, WA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, John D. Williams, Esquire, Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, Laura Halliday Hick-ein, 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: 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

Baljit Kumar and Jyoti Sharma, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if petitioners established past persecution by Punjab police, their presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted by evidence that they could safely and reasonably relocate elsewhere in India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(B); Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1069 (9th Cir.2003) (presumption of a well-founded fear can be rebutted by showing that under all the circumstances the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate); see also Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999-1000 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that agency has expertise to construe country reports). We reject petitioners’ contentions that the BIA improperly placed the burden on petitioners to establish well-founded fear, and that the IJ’s analysis of the reasonableness of relocation was based on speculation. Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     