
    Hisrael Rivera ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71620.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed July 9, 2015.
    Samuel W. Asbury, Esquire, Asbury Law Offices, Gresham, OR, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Stefanie A. Svoren-Jay, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hisrael Rivera Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rivera Ortiz did not establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See 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”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (“[a]n 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”). Thus, Rivera Ortiz’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Rivera Ortiz failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

Finally, we reject Rivera Ortiz’s contentions that the BIA’s analysis of his claims was inadequate and that the agency failed to consider all his circumstances.

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.
     