
    Rafael CACATZUM-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70669.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Oct. 21, 2013.
    Rafael Cacatzum-Sanchez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Oil, Christina Bechak Parascandola, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Respondent.
    Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rafael Cacatzum-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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, Ra-himzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.2010), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Cacat-zum-Sanchez’s contention that changed circumstances excused the untimely filing of his asylum application because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

We also lack jurisdiction to review Ca-catzum-Sanchez’s procedural due process claims related to translation problems, exclusion of testimony and alleged IJ bias, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See id.

Cacatzum-Sanchez testified he did not report his neighbors’ attack to the police. Cacatzum-Sanchez’s cousin, a local government official, testified at the hearing that he would have been able to help Ca-catzum-Sanchez had he known about the incident. The record does not compel the conclusion that the Guatemalan government is unable or unwilling to protect Ca-catzum-Sanchez from harm by his neighbors. See Rahimzadeh, 613 F.3d at 920-21. Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Cacat-zum-Sanchez did not establish that he will be tortured by the Guatemalan government or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Cacatzum-Sanchez’s contention that his case warrants a favorable exercise of pros-ecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order).

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