Case Name: Roberto NAJERA-LARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-20
Citations: 538 F. App'x 813
Docket Number: No. 11-72647
Parties: Roberto NAJERA-LARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 813–813

Head Matter:
Roberto NAJERA-LARA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72647.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2018.
Filed Aug. 20, 2013.
Richard Miyamoto, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Roberto Najera-Lara, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings 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 BIA's denial of withholding of removal, because any harm that occurred had no nexus to a protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir.2009); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 858-62 (9th Cir.2009).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief, because Petitioner failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returns to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.