
    Felipe MEJIA LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71321.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 17, 2012.
    
    Filed July 23, 2012.
    Scott Allen Marks, Law Offices of Scott A. Marks, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Felipe Mejia Lopez, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that even if Mejia Lopez was credible and established past persecution, the government rebutted the presumption that Mejia Lopez had a well-founded fear of future persecution with evidence of changed country conditions within Guatemala. See id. at 1000 (presumption of well-founded fear from Guatemalan guerrillas rebutted by evidence of 1996 peace accords). Mejia Lopez’s contention that the agency failed to conduct a sufficiently individualized analysis is not supported by the record. Accordingly, Mejia Lopez’s asylum claim fails.

Because Mejia Lopez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Id. at 1001 n. 5.

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