
    Alberto Sanchez MEJIA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72723
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 22, 2018
    Rosana Cheung, Attorney, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Sabatino F. Leo, Trial Attorney, Suzanne N. Nardone, Esquire, 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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberto Sanchez Mejia, 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 relief 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 Mejia failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (applicant’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, Mejia’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Mejia failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

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