
    Alina Maganda VALVERDE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73126.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2014.
    
    Filed June 17, 2014.
    Evan Lee Murri, Esquire, Law Offices of Evan L. Murri, Montclair, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Andrew Jacob Oliveira, Trial, 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: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, 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

Alina Maganda Valverde, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Maganda Valverde does not claim she suffered past persecution in Mexico, but fears future persecution by her father based on his past abuse and threats to the family. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Maganda Valverde did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir.2010). We reject Maganda Valverde’s contention that the BIA’s analysis ignored evidence or mischaracterized her claim. Accordingly, Maganda Valverde’s asylum claim fails.

Because Maganda Valverde did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Maganda Valverde failed to establish it is more likely than not she would be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir.2011).

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