
    Ricardo CHAVEZ-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71227
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 31, 2017
    Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner
    Nancy Canter, Trial Attorney, Elizabeth Robyn Chapman, Trial Attorney, Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial Attornéy, Tim Ramnitz, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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

Ricardo Chavez-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for the review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Chavez-Flores established extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Thus, we deny the petition as to Chavez-Flores’ asylum claim.

The BIA denied Chavez-Flores’ withholding of removal claim on the ground that Chavez-Flores could relocate within Mexico. Substantial evidence supports this finds. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (b)(3); Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003) (substantial evidence supported finding that presumption of future persecution was rebutted). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Chavez-Flores’ withholding of removal claim.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Chavez-Flores’ CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     