
    Rina Marieta SANTILLANO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74223.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2016.
    Rina Marieta Santillano, San Fernando, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Victor Matthew Lawrence, I, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rina Marieta Santillano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, 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. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Santillano does not claim she suffered harm in Guatemala, but fears harm if she returns. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Santillano failed to establish a causal nexus between the harm she fears and a protected ground. See id. at 1016 (“An [applicant’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.”). Thus, Santillano’s asylum claim fails.

Because Santillano failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Santil-lano failed to show it is more likely than not that she would be tortured by the Guatemalan government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Santillano failed to establish she registered for ABC benefits and thus is not eligible for relief under NACARA. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202, 1213-14 (9th Cir.2011) (“IIRI-RA expressly precludes federal courts from reviewing the agency’s factual determination that an immigrant is ineligible for ... special rule cancellation of removal”).

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.
     