
    Santos Elena GALVEZ-DUARTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72243.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2014.
    Gerald Kenneth Roberts, Attorney at Law, Gerald Kenneth Roberts, Law Offices of Gerald K. Roberts, Pittsburg, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ilissa M. Gould, Trial, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior. Litigation Counsel, 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santos Elena Galvez-Duarte, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Galvez-Duarte failed to establish that she suffered past persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir.2005) (record did not compel finding that threats constituted persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Galvez-Duarte failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001) (“applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (random criminal acts do not establish persecution). Thus, Galvez-Duarte’s asylum claim fails.

Because Galvez-Duarte failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. 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.
     