
    Hristo Lyubomirov BARAMOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72709.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 14, 2010.
    Allan A. Samson, Esquire, Law Office of Allan A. Samson, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Patrick James Glen, Esquire, Nehal Ka-mani, OIL, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hristo Lyubomirov Baramov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, 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 the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and de novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Baramov failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground because he did not demonstrate that his wife’s Roma ethnicity, or any other protected ground, was a central reason for the problems he experienced in Bulgaria. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741-42 (9th Cir.2009). Accordingly, Baramov’s asylum claim fails.

Because Baramov failed to establish asylum eligibility, it necessarily follows that he cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Bar-amov failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Bulgaria. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

Finally, Baramov’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his claims based on membership in a particular social group is not supported by the record. In addition, because the record indicates no error by the agency, we reject Baramov’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for due process violation).

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