
    Angelica GONZALEZ TEJADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71362.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 23, 2011.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    David Nicholas Harling, Trial U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Angelica Gonzalez Tejada, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Tejada’s asylum claim because she failed to demonstrate the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect her from the gang members that threatened her, see Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (noting burden is on the applicant to show the government is unable or unwilling to control the nongovernmental persecutor), and she failed to establish it was not reasonable for her to relocate within Guatemala, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(I).

Because Tejada failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to 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.
     