MEMORANDUM **
Ovimer Monestine, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for asylum, humanitarian 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 the agencys factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Monestine failed to establish the harm he experienced was on account of a protected ground, including an imputed political opinion. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicants “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (past persecution based on anti-gang political opinion not established where petitioners evidence failed to show that he was ideologically opposed to the gang and instead demonstrated he was victimized for economic and personal reasons), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Substantial evidence also supports the agencys determination that Monestine failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable, in part, because similarly-situated family members remained in petitioners home country unharmed). Thus, Monestines asylum, humanitarian asylum, and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agencys denial of CAT relief because Monestine failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Haiti. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.