
    Mynor Rolando MELGAR-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72005.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 22, 2016.
    Mynor Rolando Melgar-Lopez, Chino, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Micheline K. Hershey, 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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mynor Rolando Melgar-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, 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, Zehatye v. Gon zales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Mel-gar-Lopez references and submits for the first time with his reply brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

Melgar-Lopez testified he experienced trouble in Guatemala after he refused to hand out political pamphlets during the civil war, and that he was unaware of anyone in particular who might harm him if he returned to Guatemala. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Melgar-Lopez failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“[S]ince the statute makes motive critical, [an applicant] must provide some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial.”). We reject Melgar-Lopez’s contention that the IJ erred in its analysis. Thus, Melgar-Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2010).

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Melgar-Lopez failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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