Case Name: Manuel PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-22
Citations: 404 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 08-73592
Parties: Manuel PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 188–190

Head Matter:
Manuel PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73592.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manuel Pineda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming an immigration judge's decision denying his 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Pineda failed to establish a nexus between the persecution he fears in Guatemala and a statutorily protected ground. See INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground). Accordingly, Pineda's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Pineda is not eligible for CAT relief because he failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if removed to Guatemala. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.