
    Franklin Omar BRENES-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 17-70618
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    Ramin Ghashghaei, Attorney, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Manuel Palau, 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

Franklin Omar Brenes-Flores, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals1 order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Brenes-Flores failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (mistreatment motivated by retribution does not bear a nexus to a protected ground).

• Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Brenes-Flores’s CAT claim because he has not shown it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government of Guatemala or with its consent or acquiescence. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1034-35.

We reject Brenes-Flores’s contention regarding proceedings before the asylum officer and the IJ,

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