
    Misael Antonio ALVARADO-DAVILA, Francisco Javier Fonseca-Davila, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71061.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 5, 2011.
    
    Filed April 26, 2011.
    Garish Sarin, Esquire, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Misael Antonio Alvarado-Davila, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alvarado-Davila did not establish past persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009) (harm to others must be closely tied to petitioner); see also Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir.2004) (mere economic disadvantage or discrimination does not amount to persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that AlvaradoDavila does not have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his family membership because his siblings, who are similarly situated, live unharmed in Nicaragua. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2008).

To the extent the Alvarado-Davila contends the IJ failed to consider his fear of persecution on account of political opinion, independent of his social group claim, the contention is unexhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Petitioner’s remaining challenges to the denial of his asylum claim are unavailing. Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

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