
    Gerson ECHEVERRIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71336.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 3, 2014.
    Smirna Ayala, Law Offices of Ronzio & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gerson Echeverría, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Wé review for substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Echeverría does not raise any challenge to the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum application is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996). Thus, we deny the petition as to Echeverria’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Echeverría failed to establish it is more likely than not he will suffer persecution on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-1016 (9th Cir.2010); 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, Echeverria’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Echev-erría failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.2011). We reject Echeverria’s contention that the agency did not consider all the evidence relevant to his CAT claim.

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