
    Norberto Jr. Tojino LEANO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72702.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2015.
    David M. Sturman, Law Office of David M. Sturman, APC, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Joanna L. Watson, Trial, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, 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: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Norberto Jr. Tojino Leano, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 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 the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Leano’s experiences in the Philippines did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (unfulfilled threats constituted harassment, not persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Leano failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future harm in the Philippines. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir.2006) (petitioner failed to “present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). We reject Leano’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard. Thus, Leano’s asylum claim fails.

Because Leano failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

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