
    Adela R. PICADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74575.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
    Adela R. Picado, pro se.
    Peter H. Matson, Esquire, OIL, Kathryn McKinney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN and N.R. 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

Adela R. Picado, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of a 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 factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the threats and mistreatment Picado suffered do not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir.1995) (“Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”) (emphasis in original). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Picado does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution because there is no evidence in the record she will be persecuted if she returns to El Salvador. See Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.2002) (where there is no presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, country conditions reports are relevant evidence of whether such a fear is objectively reasonable).

Because Picado failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that she has not met the higher 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.
     