
    Jose Jaime ESCALANTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71975.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2010.
    Jose Jaime Escalante, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, Molly Louise De-busschere, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Jaime Escalante, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Even if Escalante testified credibly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Escalante’s asylum claim because the threats made against him did not rise to the level of persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000), and he failed to demonstrate that his fear of returning to El Salvador is objectively reasonable, see Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018.

Because Escalante failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Es-calante failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if he returns to El Salvador. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

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