
    Jose Sebastian LOPEZ, aka Jose Lopez Pineda, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-71014.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 20, 2015.
    Jose Sebastian Lopez, El Centro, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Chief Counsel ICE, Ann M. Wel-haf, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Sebastian Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of a 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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Even if Lopez established an exception to excuse his untimely asylum application, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution in El Salvador on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft ... 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”). Thus, Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, because Lopez did not show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

Finally, we reject Lopez’s due process contention. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

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