MEMORANDUM **

Mario Perez Sainz petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. When the “BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). We review the agency’s factual determinations for substantial evidence and reverse only where the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002).

The IJ found Perez Sainz credible but denied his application for asylum, finding that his past experiences did not constitute persecution on account of his membership in the particular social group of homosexual men in Mexico. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Perez Sainz’s experiences of police harassment did not rise to the level of persecution. Cf. Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005) (Mexican homosexual forced to perform oral sex nine times on police officer suffered past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that, on this record, Perez Sainz failed to demonstrate that the Mexican *42 government was unable or unwilling to control the individuals who abused him as a child. See Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 923 (9th Cir. 2010).

The IJ’s conclusion that Perez Sainz failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, particularly in light of Perez Sainz’s four years living in Mexico without incident prior to his most recent entry into the United States, was also supported by substantial evidence. See Benyamin et al. v. Holder, 579 F.3d 970, 977 (9th Cir. 2009). Because Perez Sainz was unable to meet his burden to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Perez Sainz is ineligible for CAT relief because he failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would face torture if returned to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION DENIED.