
    Rosendo BLANCO-BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70946
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    Filed September 19, 2016
    Jennifer K. Lesmez, Law Offices of Jennifer Lesmez, Selah, WA.
    Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Trial Attorney, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
    Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rosendo Blanco-Bautista, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Blanco-Bautista failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c), because the evidence demonstrates the cartel targeted Blanco-Bautista in furtherance of its criminal enterprise, which does not support a finding for persecution on account of a protected ground, see 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”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An 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.”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). We reject Blanco-Bautista’s contention that he was entitled to a presumption of future persecution.

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Blanco-Bautista failed to show a reasonable possibility that he would be tortured by the government of Mexico or with its consent or acquiescence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(c); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2013).

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