
    Buyanjargal SANDAGDORJ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71307.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 8, 2010.
    Patrick Ontiveros Cantor, Esquire, But-tar & Cantor, LLP, Tukwila, WA, for Petitioners.
    Drew Brinkman, OIL, Susan Houser, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Esquire, Seattle, WA, 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

Buyanjargal Sandagdorj, and his family, natives and citizens of Mongolia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 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, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 88 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to establish the harms they experienced in Mongolia related to lead petitioner’s occupation as a debt collector for a private company, and the harms they fear upon return, are based on a protected ground. See id. at 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812; see also Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1043-45 (9th Cir.2004) (concluding that heavy-handed tactics used by police during an investigation for legitimate purposes was not persecution on account of petitioner’s political opinion). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Mongolia. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.2004).

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