22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T52d,MEMORANDUM Beezy Portillo-Martinez, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Portillo-Martinez did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution because she has not shown the harm she suffered or fears was on account of a protected ground. See id. at 481-82 , 112 S.Ct. 812 . Further, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Portillo-Mar-tinez could relocate safely within El Salvador. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th Cir.2001). Because Portillo-Martinez failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55f,

MEMORANDUM

Beezy Portillo-Martinez, native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 factual findings. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Portillo-Martinez did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution because she has not shown the harm she suffered or fears was on account of a protected ground. See id. at 481-82 , 112 S.Ct. 812 . Further, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Portillo-Mar-tinez could relocate safely within El Salvador. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867-68 (9th Cir.2001).

Because Portillo-Martinez failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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