
    Isauro Francisco RAMIREZ-BRAVO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70092.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 9, 2010.
    Raul R. Labrador, Labrador Law Offices, Nampa, ID, for Petitioner.
    
      Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, IDB-District, Boise, ID, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Isauro Francisco Ramirez-Bravo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum and withholding of removal, as well as denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a continuance, Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 883 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004), and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Ramirez-Bravo failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, where he testified to suffering no harm in the past and he admitted to having no fear of returning to Guatemala. See Ratnam v. INS, 154 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir.1998) (“Either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution provides eligibility for a discretionary grant of asylum.”). Because RamirezABravo failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, he necessarily failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Ramirez-Bravo’s request for a continuance, where the need for a continuance was based largely on his own unreasonable conduct. See Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th Cir.1988).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal on hardship grounds. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

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