NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ORTIZ-MEJIA, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-73301 Agency No. A089-070-531
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Im m igration Appeals Subm itted October 11, 2013 * * Seattle, Washington Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Juan Ortiz-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatem ala, petitions for review of a Board of Im m igration Appeals (BIA) order dism issing his appeal of a decision by the im m igration judge (IJ) denying his applications for asylum , withholding of
rem oval, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Our jurisdiction is 

# FILED
OCT 17 2013 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

* * The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review, which addresses

only Ortiz-Mejia’s application for asylum
. Because the BIA incorporated into its order the IJ’s finding that Ortiz-Mejia had not established that he suffered from past persecution, we review both decisions to determ ine whether that finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Lopez-Cardona v. Holder , 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). We conclude that it is. Although Ortiz-Mejia testified that he had received threats against him self, his fam ily, and his hom e, he did not provide specific details as to the tone or m anner of those threats. Ortiz-Mejia, his fam ily, and his hom e were never actually harm ed in any way. In the absence of m ore specific evidence of threats of harm or actual harm , the agency’s finding that Ortiz-Mejia did not suffer past persecution is supported by substantial evidence. The agency’s determ ination that Ortiz-Mejia failed to establish a wellfounded fear of future persecution is likewise supported by the record. See generally Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). To establish eligibility for asylum because of a well-founded fear of persecution, an alien’s fear “m ust be both subjectivel y genuine and objectively reasonable.” Ghaly v. INS , 58 F.3d 1425, 1428 (9th Cir. 1995). Although Ortiz-Mejia satisfied the subjective
com ponent by providing credible testim ony, see Prasad v. INS , 47 F.3d 336, 338
2(9th Cir. 1995), he did not satisfy the objective com ponent, which “requires a

showing by credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record, of facts supporting a reasonable fear of persecution on the relevant ground,” Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th Cir. 1996). Ortiz-Mejia produced som e evidence that the individuals who threatened him identified him politically with the official for whom he worked, and therefore
m ay have been m otivated to harm him on account of a protected ground. See Velarde v. INS , 140 F.3d 1305, 1311 (9th Cir. 1998) (im puting the political opinion of a public official to a bodyguard for the official’s fam ily). Even if he showed im puted political opinion, however, Ortiz-Mejia failed to establish that his fear of future persecution is objectively reasonable, because substantial evidence supports the finding that it is unlikely that the persecution he fears will be ongoing. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, whatever the reasonableness of Ortiz-Mejia’s fear in the past, it is dispelled by the fact that the politician for whom he worked no longer is in office. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3