
    Cesar Augusto ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71295.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2010.
    Bernardo Merino, Law Office of Bernardo Merino, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Anthony John Messuri, 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, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cesar Augusto Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ortiz did not establish past persecution based on threats by the guerillas and a single instance of mistreatment by soldiers. See id. at 936 (only in “certain extreme cases [have we] held that repeated and especially menacing death threats can constitute a primary part of a past persecution claim”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Ortiz failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in light of changed country conditions following the 1996 peace accords. See Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.2002).

Because Ortiz did not establish eligibility for asylum, it necessarily 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).

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