
    Rafael Alejandro Abarca MERCADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 17-70373
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 22, 2018
    Rafael Alejandro Abarca' Mercado, Pro Se
    David Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, 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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, 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

Rafael Alejandro Abarca Mercado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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). We deny the petition for review.

We reject, as without merit, Mercado’s argument that the IJ erred in finding him removable, where Mercado conceded the allegations and the charge that he did not have a valid entry document at the time he sought entry to the United States and does not dispute these concessions on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(i)(I).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mercado failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground). Thus, in the absence of nexus to a protected ground, Mercado’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id. at 1015-16.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Mercado’s CAT claim because he has not shown it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government of Mexico or with its consent or acquiescence. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

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