
    Jose Rey Mendoza FELIPE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72679.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 18, 2015.
    Flomy Javier Diza, Esquire, Reeves & Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Rey Mendoza Felipe, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 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 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). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Felipe failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Thus, his asylum claim is time-barred.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Felipe’s past harm from a random mugging did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.2005) (persecution is an extreme concept). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Felipe’s future fear lacked a nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence ... bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Felipe’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports, the denial of CAT relief, because Felipe has not shown it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of the Philippines if he is returned. See Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1108 (9th Cir.2011) (en Banc).

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