
    Jorge Orlando IRAHETA-OSORIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-74015.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 21, 2011.
    Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Benjamin Zeitlin, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Orlando Iraheta-Osorio, a native, and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even if credible, Iraheta-Oso-rio’s experiences in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Iraheta-Osorio failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, because he did not demonstrate that the gang members who sought to extort money from him and his family were motivated by anything other than an economic interest. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (fears stemming from isolated criminal acts do not provide a basis for relief). Accordingly, Iraheta-Osorio’s asylum claim fails.

Because Iraheta-Osorio did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. 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.
     