
    German Exequiel SEGOVIA-ARANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72576.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
    Sarah J. Jones, Esquire, Law Office of Sarah J.M. Jones, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, Craig William Kuhn, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Assistant Director, 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: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

German Exequiel Segovia-Arana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Segovia-Arana’s fear of harm based on personal retribution did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future harm on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zaearias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Because Segovia-Arana did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Segovia-Arana failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to El Salvador. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 748.

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