
    Maria BARRERA-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73149.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed July 30, 2010.
    Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre,. Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David Nicholas Harling, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Barrera-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

•The BIA denied Barrera-Cruz’s asylum application as time-barred. Barrera-Cruz does not challenge this finding in her opening brief.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Barrera-Cruz did not establish past persecution because the 1995 break-in incident and the death and beating of her cousins were not on account of a protected ground, see id. at 481-83, 112 S.Ct. 812; see also 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”), and the threats from the gang member known as “Shaggy” did not rise to the level of persecution, see Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). Barrera-Cruz’s claim for humanitarian asylum necessarily fails because she did not establish past persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(iii).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Bai'rera-Cruz did not establish a clear probability of future persecution, particularly because her similarly-situated family members remain in El Salvador unharmed. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, Barrera-Cruz’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     