
    Alexandra Alois CSIKI, a.k.a. Alois Alexandra Csiki, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72845.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 17, 2013.
    Howard Robert Davis, Law Offices of Howard R. Davis, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Stefanie A. Svoren-Jay, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alexandra Alois Csiki, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that in light of current country conditions in Romania, Csiki failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if he returned there. See Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1288-89 (9th Cir.2008) (upholding agency’s finding that petitioner would not be tortured because country conditions have changed). Csiki’s contention that the BIA failed to consider country conditions in Romania is contradicted by the BIA’s statement that “the evidence of record indicates that torture sometimes occurs in Romania” and its reference to other “documentary evidence.” Csiki’s contention that the BIA did not adequately consider the harm he suffered in the early 1990’s has no bearing on the BIA’s dispositive finding regarding changed country conditions.

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