
    Omar Antonio FUNES, aka Omar Hernandez Escalera, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72477.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed July 7, 2015.
    Omar Antonio Funes, pro se.
    Ann A. Lim, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Richard Zan-fardino, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Omar Antonio Funes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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 protection 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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Funes does not contend that he suffered past persecution, but claims a fear of future persecution and torture.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Funes did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of persecution was “too speculative”).

Because Funes failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Funes failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

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