
    Ana Maria PEREZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72863.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Nov. 24, 2014.
    Ana Maria Perez-Ramirez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Carl Henry Mcintyre, Jr., Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. 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

Ana Maria Perez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Perez-Ramirez testified an unidentified man threatened her in El Salvador and that she feared gangs in El Salvador. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez-Ramirez failed to show any harm to her was or would be motivated by a protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir.1998) (criminal acts bore 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, Perez-Ramirez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.2004).

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