
    Luis Armando REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72175.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2014.
    
    Filed April 11, 2014.
    Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of Judith Seeds Miller, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Nicole Thomas-Dorris, 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: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Armando Reyes, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Reyes failed to establish the harm he suffered at the hands of guerrillas was on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Consequently, Reyes is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, and is not eligible for humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). The BIA found Reyes waived any claim that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution in the absence of a showing of past persecution. Reyes does not challenge the BIA’s finding.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Reyes’ CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008). We reject Reyes’ contention that the agency failed to fully or properly analyze his CAT claim.

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