
    Jose Maria REYES-MATUL, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71975
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 22, 2016
    Fermín Valencia, I, Esquire, Attorney, Valencia & Associates APC, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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

Jose Maria Reyes-Matul, 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 decision denying his application for asylum 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, Nagoulko v. INS, 833 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Matul failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in Guatemala on account of a political opinion or imputed political opinion. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir. 1997) (record did not compel a finding that persecution occurred “on account of’ political beliefs absent sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[petitioner’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.”) (internal citation omitted). Thus, Reyes-Matul’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Reyes-Matul’s CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of any public official if returned to Gua-témala. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).

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