
    Belica Yanira GUZMAN-ESCOBAR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71981
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 22, 2018
    Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Mario Acosta, Jr., Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner
    Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial Attorney, 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: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bélica Yanira Guzman-Escobar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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). We deny in the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Guzman-Escobar established extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Guzman-Escobar’s asylum claim fails.

Guzman-Escobar does not challenge the agency’s finding that she failed to establish past persecution, and substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that, even if Guzman-Escobar’s family constitutes a particular social group, she failed to establish a nexus between the harm she fears and a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group” (emphasis in original)); see also 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, her withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Guzman-Escobar failed to show it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).

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