
    Jose Atilio RECENOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71470.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 29, 2014.
    Donald A. Olsen, Esquire, Ivener & Fullmer, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Mona Maria Yous-if, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security,' San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P.'34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Atilio Recenos, a native and citizen of- Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.

The BIA found that Recenos failed to establish the harm he experienced and fears in El Salvador was on account of a protected ground. Recenos’ contends that he suffered harm on account of his particular social group comprised of his family. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Recenos failed to establish that he or his family members were targeted by gang members because of their family membership. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (under the REAL ID Act, a protected ground must be “one central reason” for an applicant’s persecution); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (“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, Recenos’s withholding of removal claim fails.

■ In light of our conclusion, we need not reach Recenos’s remaining contentions.

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