
    Jose Isabelo Carandang LIBROJO; Gilbert Philippe Carandang Librojo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73563.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    Jeremiah Johnson, Reeves & Associates, APLC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esquire, Trial, Jessica Eden Sherman, Esquire, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, Oil, 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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, 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 Isabelo Carandang Librojo and Gilbert Philippe Carandang Librojo, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal determinations. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioners do not challenge the IJ’s finding that they did not establish past persecution. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued are deemed waived). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that petitioners did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because they could internally relocate, as their parents had done upon their return to the Philippines. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743-44 (9th Cir.2008) (safety of similarly situated family members undermined well-founded fear). Accordingly, their asylum claims fail.

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 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.
     