
    Taniela LAUPAPALANGI VI; Joyleen Taynia VI, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72998.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 25, 2012.
    Patrick Ontiveros Cantor, Esquire, But-tar & Cantor, LLP, Tukwila, WA, for Petitioners.
    Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Paul Fiorino, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Taniela Laupapalangi Vi and his wife, Joyleen Taynia Vi, natives and citizens of Tonga, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Vi does not contend he suffered past persecution, but argues he has a well-founded fear of future persecution based upon his support of the pro-democracy group. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Vi’s asylum application was timely, he is not eligible for asylum because he was not persecuted in Tonga and his fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable in light of his testimony that the government of Tonga was not aware he provided financial support from the United States to the pro-democracy group. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because Vi failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Vi failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if removed to Tonga. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

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