
    Jose Luis MAZARIEGOS-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 12, 2010.
    Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, Esquire, Law Office of Rhoda Wilkinson Domingo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Julia Tyler, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   ORDER

Mazariegos-Delgado’s petition for panel rehearing is granted in part.

The memorandum disposition filed on January 21, 2010 is withdrawn. A replacement memorandum disposition is being filed concurrently with this order.

No further filing shall be accepted in this closed case.

MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Mazariegos-Delgado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Mazarie-gos-Delgado’s contention that he qualifies for humanitarian asylum because he failed to exhaust this claim before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Substantial evidence supports the IFs conclusion that Mazariegos-Delgado did not show that his problems with Rudy Vega and his family, or Mazariegos-Delga-do’s problems with the political party, Union de Centro Nacional, established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028-30 (9th Cir.2000); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001)- (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground).

Substantial evidence also supports the IFs determination that, even though Maza-riegos-Delgado suffered past persecution by the Guatemalan police on account of his imputed political opinion, the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution had been rebutted due to the change in circumstances. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285-86 (9th Cir.2008) (agency rationally construed evidence in the record and provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of the petitioner’s situation). Therefore, Mazariegos-Delgado’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009)

Finally, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Mazariegos-Delgado is not entitled to CAT protection because he failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Ha-san v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 1114, 1122-23 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     