Salazar-Villalobos

Valentina Salazar-Villalobos and her two minor children (“petitioners”), natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition for review.

In the absence of a specific finding to the contrary, we assume that Valentina testified credibly at the asylum hearing. See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir.2000). Nonetheless, her testimony does not compel the conclusion that she established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of political opinion or imputed political opinion. See id. at 1113 (“To prevail [on a petition for review], the applicant must show that the evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that the asylum decision was incorrect.”).

By failing to qualify for asylum, petitioners necessarily fail to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s streamlining…