
    Manuel Salvador TRUJILLO-BARDALAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71205
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 28, 2017
    Manuel Salvador Trujillo-Bardalas, Pro Se
    Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Kristin Moresi, Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorneys, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    
      Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Salvador Trujillo-Bardalas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 relief 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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the new documents submitted as attachments to Trujillo-Bar-dalas’ opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Trujillo-Bardalas failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground). Thus, Trujillo-Bardalas’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Trujillo-Bardalas failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     