
    Jose Alfredo Estrada HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71422.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 30, 2015.
    Jose Alfredo Estreda Hernandez, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Nancy Canter, Trial, 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: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

José Alfredo Estrada Hernandez, a native and citizen óf Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Estrada Hernandez did not establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground if returned to Guatemala. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (“[a]n alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears, no nexus to a protected ground”); see also 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”). Thus, we deny Estrada Hernandez’s petition as to his withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Estrada Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008). Thus, we deny Estrada Hernandez’s petition as to his CAT claim as well.

We lack jurisdiction over Estrada Hernandez’s hardship and due process contentions because he did raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

Finally, Estrada Hernandez’s challenge to the conditions of his bond is not properly before us. See, e.g., Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir.2011) (clarifying the proper procedure for challenging a Casas-Castrillon bond determination).

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