
    Evaristo DE LEON-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70211.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 3, 2015.
    Thomas A. Lappin, Esquire, Law Office of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, 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: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Evaristo De Leon-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Leon-Lopez did not establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground if returned to Guatemala. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (petitioner’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”); see also 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”). Thus, we deny Leon-Lopez’s petition as to his withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Leon-Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008). Thus, we deny Leon-Lopez’s petition as to his CAT claim.

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