
    Gustavo Alfredo CHAN-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72934
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 22, 2016
    Seth L. Reszko, Esquire, Attorney, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    Patrick James Glen, Esquire, OIL, Laura Halliday Hickein, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, for Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gustavo Alfredo Chan-Gomez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Chan-Gomez states he did not suffer past persecution, but contends he established a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the incidents of harm to various family members. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Chan-Gomez failed to establish he will be targeted on account of a protected ground if returned to Guatemala. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [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.”). We reject Chan-Gomez’s contention that the IJ erred in its analysis of his political opinion claim, or that the BIA erred by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision. Thus, Chan-Gomez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16.

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Chan-Gomez’s contention regarding his CAT claim because he failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).

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