
    Juan Carlos PALACIOS-MOLINA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71500.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 20, 2013.
    Gerald Kenneth Roberts, Law Offices Of Gerald K. Roberts, Pittsburg, CA, for Petitioner.
    Rachel Louise Browning, Trial, Briena Strippoli, Esquire, Trial, 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, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Palacios-Molina, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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.

Palacios-Molina does not claim he suffered past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Palacios-Molina does not have a wellfound-ed fear of persecution because he failed to demonstrate that he could not relocate within Peru to avoid harm. See Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder, 641 F.3d 333, 338 (9th Cir.2011) (in the absence of past persecution, the burden is on the petitioner to show that relocation would be unreasonable). We reject Palacios-Molina’s contention that the BIA used the wrong burden of proof as to relocation. Accordingly, Pa-lacios-Molina’s asylum claim fails.

Because Palacios-Molina failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     