
    Marco Antonio CHAVEZ LOZOYA; Ana Maria Reyes Rojo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75350.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Nadeem H. Makada, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David E. Dauenheimer, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marco Antonio Chavez Lozoya and Ana Maria Reyes Rojo, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying Chavez Lozoya’s application for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, and Reyes Rojo’s application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chavez Lozoya’s false testimony was motivated in part by a desirable outcome in his immigration proceedings, barring him from establishing the good moral character required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(6); Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2001).

Even assuming Reyes Rojo’s membership in a social group, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that she failed to demonstrate that she has a well-founded fear of persecution. See Rostomian v. INS, 210 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2000) (general civil strife or widespread random violence is not sufficient to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution). Because Reyes Rojo failed to meet the lesser standard for eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See id.

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