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:T43f,MEMORANDUM Margalena Gerbacio-Gaspar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence factual findings, 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 finding that any harm Gerbacio-Gas-par alleged or fears is not on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2010); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Gerba-cio-Gaspar’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Zetino at 1015-16 . 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:T46c,

MEMORANDUM

Margalena Gerbacio-Gaspar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence factual findings, 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 finding that any harm Gerbacio-Gas-par alleged or fears is not on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2010); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Gerba-cio-Gaspar’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Zetino at 1015-16 .

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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