
    Jolan GURDON, AKA Jessie Henson, AKA David Raymond, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70364
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 31, 2017
    Margarita Silva, Esquire, Attorney, Silva & Fontes, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Nor-wood, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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

Jolan Gurdon, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under CAT because Gurdon failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if removed to Jamaica. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that the petitioner’s claims of possible torture were speculative and therefore did not compel reversal). Gurdon’s contention that the agency insufficiently considered his CAT claim is not supported by the record. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (the BIA is not required to “discuss each piece of evidence submitted”).

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