
    Juan GONZALEZ-PEDRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Responent.
    No. 12-71783.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 26, 2013.
    William J. Baker, Moreno & Associates, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jesse Matthew Bless, OIL, DOJ-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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Gonzalez-Pedro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Gonzalez-Pedro established extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Accordingly, his asylum application fails.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Gonzalez-Pedro failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground based on having been bullied by children in school and threatened by his uncle. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (The Real ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Gonzalez-Pedro’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection because Gonzalez-Pedro failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008) (denying petition for relief under CAT because petitioner failed. to demonstrate it was more likely than not that she would be tortured “at the instigation of, or with the acquiescence of the Philippine government”).

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.
     