
    Carlos Humberto de la ROCA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71424
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 20, 2016
    Carlos Humberto De La Roca, Pro Se
    Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Humberto de la Roca, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 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), and we deny the petition for review.

Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that de la Roca failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future 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”). We reject de la Roca’s contention that the agency inadequately addressed his claim. Thus, de la Roca’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010).

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of de la Roea’s CAT claim because the record does not compel a finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government or with its consent or acquiescence upon his return to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

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