
    Armen ARAKELYAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71624.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 20, 2015.
    Matthew Harrison Green, Esquire, Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, Tucson, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Timothy Bo Stanton, Jason Wisecup, 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: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armen Arakelyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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; see Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (9th Cir.2013). 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.

Arakelyan claims a fear of torture based on his failure to register for military service, general corruption and prison conditions, and his vengeful co-defendant from a prior criminal case. Substantial evidence supports .the agency’s conclusion that, considering the likelihood of harm from these sources individually or in the aggregate, Arakelyan did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Armenia. See id. at 1073; see also Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-86 (9th Cir.2011) (speculative claim did not compel CAT relief); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948-49 (9th Cir.2007) (record did not compel a finding of government acquiescence to torture).

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