MEMORANDUM **
Brothers Daniel and Vasile Budure (“Petitioners”), citizens of Romania, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the petition.
Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s conclusions as to whether Petitioners demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, we review that portion of the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s own. Hoque v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Wang v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.2003)). After a careful review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination. Even if reasonable minds could differ over whether the discrimination and harassment Petitioners endured in Romania amount to past persecution, the facts do not compel such a finding. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir.2011) (to reverse factual findings, “the evidence must compel a different conclusion from the one reached by the [IJ]” (citing INS v. Elias-Zacanas, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992))). Additionally, Petitioners fail to demonstrate a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir.2007) (“To be well-founded, an asylum applicant’s fear of persecution must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because they do not meet the eligibility requirements for asylum, Petitioners’ “claim[s] for withholding of removal, governed by a more stringent standard, [are] also foreclosed.” Castro-Martinez v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir.2011) (citing Gomes v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir.2005)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.