Case Name: Selvin AMILCAR-FUNEZ, aka Selvin Amilcar Funez and Yoselin Carolina Funes-Torres, aka Yoselin Carolina Funez-Torres, aka Joselyn Carolina Funez Torres, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-24
Citations: 623 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 08-71239
Parties: Selvin AMILCAR-FUNEZ, aka Selvin Amilcar Funez and Yoselin Carolina Funes-Torres, aka Yoselin Carolina Funez-Torres, aka Joselyn Carolina Funez Torres, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 395–396

Head Matter:
Selvin AMILCAR-FUNEZ, aka Selvin Amilcar Funez and Yoselin Carolina Funes-Torres, aka Yoselin Carolina Funez-Torres, aka Joselyn Carolina Funez Torres, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71239.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Filed Nov. 24, 2015.
Milton Katz, Esquire, Law Office of Milton Katz, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
O.I.L., David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Lauren Fascett, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Selvin Amilcar-Funez and Yoselin Carolina Funes-Torres, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their applications 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. Zeha-tye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that petitioners could internally relocate, where the evidence showed that petitioners had already successfully relocated to avoid harm in Honduras for at least one year before leaving the country. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867-868 (9th Cir.2001). Thus, their asylum claim fails.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 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.