
    Marlon VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70526
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 14, 2017
    
      Richard Miyamoto, Attorney, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Mona Maria Yousif, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable, for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marlon Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vasquez failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. See 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.”). Thus, Vasquez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Vasquez’s CAT claim because he failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     