
    Carlos Armando GUEVARA GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72463.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Nov. 30, 2009.
    Carlos Armando Guevara Guzman, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    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, OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Edward C. Durant, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Armando Guevara Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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. Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

Guevara Guzman testified gang members attacked him because they believed he had money and/or other items they wanted. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Guevara Guzman failed to demonstrate that he was harmed or has a well-founded fear of harm on account of a protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1486-87 (9th Cir.1997); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2009) (the protected ground has to be “one central reason” for persecution). Accordingly, Guevara Guzman’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail.

To the extent Guevara Guzman challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider, we lack jurisdiction to consider it because Guevara Guzman did not petition for review of that order. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

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