
    Norma LOBOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73283.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    July 29, 2010.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Lynda Do, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Norma Lobos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her applications 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 factual findings. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition.

Lobos does not raise any challenge to the BIA’s determination that her asylum application is time-barred. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to Lo-bos’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Lobos did not demonstrate a clear probability of persecution because Lobos has not shown that the harm her family suffered was on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to her withholding of removal claim. See id. at 744.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Lobos is not eligible for CAT relief because she failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured in El Salvador. See id. at 747-48.

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