
    Erick Rivary CATALAN-DEL CID, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74574.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    Deniz S. Arik, Esquire, The Law Office of Deniz S. Arik, John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, OIL, Susan Houser, Carl Henry Mcintyre, Jr., Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erick Rivary Catalan-Del Cid, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 933 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

Petitioner contends guerillas kidnaped his son based on petitioner’s political opinion or his membership in a particular social group. Substantial evidence supports the Id’s findings that petitioner failed to establish this incident occurred on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997) (persecution by anti-government guerillas may not, “from that fact alone, be presumed to be ‘on account of political opinion”). As this incident is the only basis for petitioner’s claim of past persecution and of a well-founded fear of future persecution, his asylum claim fails. See id.

Because Catalan-Del Cid did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the Id’s denial of CAT relief because petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

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