
    JIN HE-CHUAN, aka Chaun Jin He, aka Ming Yu, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73863
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 31, 2016  Pasadena, California
    FILED September 02, 2016
    Ron Su, Law Offices of David Z Su, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Aric Allan Anderson, Trial Attorney, Walter Bocchini, Esquire, 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: SILVERMAN, FISHER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jin He-Chuan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

He-Chuan contends Chinese officials persecuted him, and would arrest him upon his return, on account of his political activity in refusing the government’s demand for his parent’s land. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the government’s interest in He-Chuan derived from a legitimate prosecu-torial purpose after he kicked a government official and potentially vandalized government equipment. See Lin v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Ordinary prosecution for criminal activity is not persecution ‘on account of a protected ground.”); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “one central reason” for persecution). Because He-Chuan failed to establish a nexus between his past or feared mistreatment and a protected ground, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

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