
    Rigoberto RODRIGUEZ-GUTIERREZ, AKA Rogoberto Rodriguez-Gutierrez, AKA Ruberto Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-71205
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 31, 2017
    Gabriel Gomez Leyba, Crossroads Law Group LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner
    OIL, Matt A. Crapo, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rigoberto Rodriguez-Gutierrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rodriguez-Gutierrez’s CAT claim because, even if credible, he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See id. at 1054 (record evidence insufficient to compel conclusion that petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative).

We do not address Rodriguez-Gutierrez’s contention regarding the IJ’s particularly serious crime finding because the BIA expressly declined to reach this finding.

We reject Rodriguez-Gutierrez’s contention that the agency failed to consider record evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     