
    Santana de Jesus MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72369.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 24, 2016.
    Svitlana V. Elliott, Law Offices of Lana Elliott, PLLC, Spokane Valley, WA, for Petitioner.
    Todd J. Cochran, OIL, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santana de' Jesus Mejia, 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 application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mejia did not demonstrate he suffered past persecution in Guatemala. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003) (record did not compel the finding that petitioner suffered past persecution, particularly where petitioner did not suffer any significant physical harm); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (“Threats standing alone ... constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Mejia failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would-be harmed if returned to Guatemala. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Mejia’s withholding of removal claim fails. •

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