
    Rainer Amin BERNAL, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70165.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
    Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rainer Amin Bernal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and 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, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Bernal filed his untimely asylum application within a reasonable period of time after he learned of threats against his uncles in Mexico. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th Cir.2008). Thus, Bernal’s asylum claim fails.

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Bernal did not establish that it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted if returned to Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (speculative fear was insufficient to compel a finding of a well-founded fear of future persecution). Accordingly, Bernal’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Bernal’s CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. Thus, Bernal’s CAT claim fails.

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