
    Oscar Antonio LANDAVERDE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74325.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 24, 2015.
    Oscar Antonio Landaverde, Burbank, CA, pro se.
    Monica Antoun, Esquire, Oil, 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: TASHIMA, OWENS, 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

Oscar Antonio Landaverde’s opposed motion to hold proceedings in abeyance is denied.

Landaverde, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of 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 (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials Landa-verde references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record before the BIA. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Landaverde’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in El Salvador. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.2011) (record did not compel reversal where “claims of possible torture remain speculative[ ]”). We reject Landaverde’s contentions that the agency erred in analyzing his claim, and failed to consider evidence.

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