
    Pablo Antonio CHACON-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73664.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed July 28, 2014.
    Steve Paek, Law Office of Steve Paek, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Anna Nelson, 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: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pablo Antonio Chacon-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review'for substantial evidence factual findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we review de novo due process claims, Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir.2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Chacon-Martinez did not establish past persecution or a well-founded future fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812 (petitioner must provide some evidence of the persecutor’s motivation). Thus, Chacon-Mar-tinez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2001).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Chacon-Martinez failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

Finally, we reject Chacon-Martinez’s claim that the agency violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).

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