
    Jose Noe GARCIA-MONGE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72450.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2010.
    Vera A. Weisz, Law Office of Vera A. Weisz, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Sarah Maloney, DOJ — 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 Noe Garcia-Monge, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia-Monge failed to establish the severe hazing he suffered at school was on account of his political opinion or any other protected ground. See id. at 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812. Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Because Garcia-Monge 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 Garcia-Monge did not establish a likelihood of torture by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of the El Salvadoran government. See Aza-nor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir .2004).

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