22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T52f,MEMORANDUM Imad Fouad Zein, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. 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 deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zein failed to demonstrate that either the threatening phone calls he received from Hezbollah or the attempted kidnaping of his son were on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Tecun-Florian v. INS, 207 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir.2000). The record also does not compel the conclusion that the harassment Zein experienced by guards at checkpoints amounted to persecution or demonstrated a clear probability of persecution. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2000); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Zein’s withholding of removal claim fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T55c,

MEMORANDUM

Imad Fouad Zein, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. 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 deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Zein failed to demonstrate that either the threatening phone calls he received from Hezbollah or the attempted kidnaping of his son were on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Tecun-Florian v. INS, 207 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir.2000). The record also does not compel the conclusion that the harassment Zein experienced by guards at checkpoints amounted to persecution or demonstrated a clear probability of persecution. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1100-01 (9th Cir.2000); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Zein’s withholding of removal claim fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (b)(3).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.