an immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual determinations, Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001), and review de novo due process claims, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Echeverria-Ruiz’s application for withholding of removal because she failed to establish that the guerrillas targeted her because of her political opinion or any other statutorily protected ground. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the record does not compel a
holding that petitioners who apply for withholding of removal must establish that a statutorily protected ground was a reason for their persecution holding that dangers arising from police work do not support a claim of persecution on account of a protected ground holding that random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground holding that harassment by the farc for refusing to cooperate with their demands for money did not establish a nexus to a statutorily protected ground holding that persecution by militants for purpose of recruitment does not establish a nexus to a protected ground