
    Raul BUSTOS-GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73141.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
    Curtis F. Pierce, Law Offices of Curtis F. Pierce, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sara Bergene, Oil, 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: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, 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

Raul Bustos-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Bustos-Gutierrez testified that he, his father, and his uncle were involved in a murder in the United States. Busto-Gu-tierrez does not claim past persecution, but fears harm from family members in Mexico because he provided information to authorities about his father and uncle’s involvement in that murder. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Bustos-Gutierrez did not demonstrate a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1164 (9th Cir.2009) (“The BIA permissibly found that Petitioner’s fear of future persecution stems from the criminals’ motive to retaliate against him for informing on them.”); see also Molino-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1052 (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Accordingly, Bustos-Gutierrez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Bus-tos-Gutierrez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Soriano, 569 F.3d at 1167.

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