
    Lkhagvasuren ERDENE ULZII, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74427.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 26, 2016.
    
    Filed May 2, 2016.
    Jeffrey O’Brien, Esq., The Law Office of Jeffrey O’Brien, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner.
    Robert Michael Stalzer, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, 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

Lkhagvasuren Erdene Ulzii, a native and citizen of Mongolia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.-

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Erdene Ulzii failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution in Mongolia on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground" represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Molino-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“[t]o reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original). Thus, Erdene Ulzii’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1052.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Erdene Ulzii’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by the Mongolian government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Erdene Ulzii’s contention that the IJ erred in not fully considering his CAT claim. See Singh v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1190, 1199 (9th Cir.2010) (any error by the IJ was rendered harmless by the BIA’s de novo review of the issue). Thus, Erdene Ulzii’s CAT claim fails.

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