
    Juan Carlos BELTRAN-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73235.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2013.
    Stephanie Thorpe, Rios-Cantor, P.S. Attorneys at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ali Manuchehry, Esquire, Trial, Oil, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jennifer Paisner Williams, 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, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Beltran-Delgado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal (“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 BIA’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Beltran-Delgado was the victim of gang violence and robberies and fears future harm by gang members in El Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Beltran-Delgado failed to show that the gang members were or would be motivated by a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (“An alien’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”). Accordingly, Beltran-Delgado’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Bel-tran-Delgado did not establish he would be tortured by the government of El Salvador or with its consent or acquiescence. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     