NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAOLA VASQUEZ-GONZALEZ, AKA No. 17-73475 Paola Vazquez,

Agency No. A098-916-215

Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2019** Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Paola Vasquez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”).

*

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

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Vasquez-Gonzalez’s contentions as to past persecution, childhood abuse, and sexual assault because they were not presented to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that her fear of future persecution is not on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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, we deny the petition as to her asylum and withholding of removal claims.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Vasquez-Gonzalez failed to establish that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009). The BIA did not otherwise err in its analysis of her CAT claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

2 17-73475