
    Luis LEMUS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71092.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
    John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Brooke Maurer, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Lemus, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lemus failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See id. at 1098 (mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution does not bear a nexus to a protected ground); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting petitioner’s claim where he “provided no evidence that his opposition to the gang’s criminal activity was based on political opinion”), overruled on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc). We lack jurisdiction to consider Lemus’ unexhausted contention regarding a “hybrid” nexus analysis. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Thus, Lemus’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2010).

The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on November 13, 2015, has expired. Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.

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