
    HAN ZHANG LU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73934.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 14, 2011.
    Cindy Siuhuei Chang, Law Offices of Cindy S. Chang, Walnut, CA, for Petitioner.
    James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nehal Kamani, Sarah L. Vuong, 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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Han Zhang Lu, 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lu is ineligible for asylum where he conceded he suffered no past persecution and failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in China. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Arriarga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991) (noting that persecution of a petitioner’s family members may establish a well-founded fear, despite a lack of persecution against the petitioner, only if the persecution is “closely tied to the petitioner”). Accordingly, Lu’s asylum claim fails.

Because Lu failed to prove eligibility for asylum, Lu has necessarily failed to prove eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

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.
     