
    Karen JILAVDARYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71137.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 9, 2013.
    Karen Jilavdaryan, Burbank, CA, pro se.
    Deborah Karapetian, Law Offices of Deborah L. Karapetian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jesse Matthew Bless, Oil, David V. Ber-nal, Assistant Director, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ— 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: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Karen Jilavdaryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection 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, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Jilavdaryan contends he suffered past persecution and has a fear of future persecution by “Armenian mobsters” who extorted money from him. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft ... bears no nexus to a protected ground.”); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (a protected ground must be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant). We reject Jilavdaryan’s contention that the BIA failed to address his arguments, and also reject his request for a remand.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Jilavdaryan’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Armenia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

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