
    Mariano PENA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71028.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 4, 2014.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Theodore Charles Hirt, 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, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mariano Pena, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if credible, Pena failed to demonstrate harm rising to the level of persecution. See 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 marks and citation omitted). Because Pena failed to demonstrate past persecution, he is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. See Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir.2002). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Pena failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Honduras. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 976-77 (9th Cir.2009) (petitioner failed to establish the objective component of a well-founded fear of future persecution).

Finally, because Pena failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     