Case Name: Jorge Antonio LUNA-BAUTISTA, aka Jorge Antonio Bautista, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-24
Citations: 668 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 14-73249
Parties: Jorge Antonio LUNA-BAUTISTA, aka Jorge Antonio Bautista, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
Jorge Antonio LUNA-BAUTISTA, aka Jorge Antonio Bautista, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73249
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 24, 2016
Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu Ali, Riverside, CA.
Lance Lomond Jolley, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, 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
Jorge Antonio Luna-Bautista, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for 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 BIA's determination that Luna-Bautista failed to establish a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2008) (under the REAL ID Act, an applicant must prove a protected ground is at least "one central reason" for persecution). Thus, Luna-Bautista's withholding of removal claim fails. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's denial of Luna-Bautista's CAT claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.