Hugo Aldana Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have *2 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports th e agency’s determination that Aldana Hernandez failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”) ; Cruz-Navarro v. INS , 232 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Persecution occurring because a person is a current member of a pol ice force . . . is not on account of one of the grounds enumerated in the Act.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, Aldana Hernandez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denia l of CAT relief because Aldana Hernandez 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 Mexico. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).

We reject as unsupported by the record Aldana Hernandez’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims. We do not consider materials included with Aldana Hernandez’s opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).