
    Hifig KILZI-MARDIK, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72280.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 14, 2011.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nehal Kamani, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hifig Kilzi-Mardik, a native of Lebanon and citizen of Venezuela, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Kilzi-Mardik’s contention that he suffered harm on account of his ethnicity and membership in a particular social group. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that he failed to demonstrate a nexus between past or feared future harm and a protected ground. See Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (petitioner presented no evidence he was victimized on account of his race as opposed to the perpetrators’ “observation that he carried a cell phone and a watch”); Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.1996) (individuals with “low economic status” are not a particular social group). Accordingly, KilziMardik’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir.2005).

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