MEMORANDUM **

Eleno Emperatriz Lopez-Cifuentes and Elcias Eleno Lopez-Mazariegos, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the three unfulfilled threats by the guerillas, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (unfulfilled threats, without more, generally do not constitute past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in light of changed country conditions in Guatemala. See Molinar-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (when a petitioner has not established past persecution, the agency may “rely on all relevant evidence in the record, including a State Department report, in considering whether the petitioner has demonstrated that there is good reason to fear future persecution.”). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because Lopez-Cifuentes failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Lopez-Cifuentes has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

*625 We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that they qualify for humanitarian asylum because they failed to exhaust this claim before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.