
    LONG HONG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73537.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2014.
    
    Filed June 16, 2014.
    Long Hong, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    OIL, David Schor, Trial, Sarah L. Vuong, Stephen Elliott, Esquire, 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: 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

Long Hong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Hong claims he has a well-founded fear of future persecution by the Chinese government because he provided assistance to North Korean refugees. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Hong failed to establish his fear of persecution is objectively reasonable because his wife, who participated with him in assisting the refugees, remains in China unharmed. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (future harm was speculative); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (“[a]n applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident”). Accordingly, Hong’s asylum claim fails.

Because Hong did not establish asylum eligibility, it necessarily follows that he did not satisfy 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     