
    Manuel David BORRAEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73961.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 30, 2013.
    Manuel David Borraez, pro se.
    Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel David Borraez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (9th Cir.2013); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 942 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007). We review for substantial evidence factual findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Borraez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is ineligible for asylum based on his conviction for an aggravated felony.

Borraez does not contend that he suffered past persecution. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Borraez failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner’s fear was too speculative to meet the standard for relief). Accordingly, Borraez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Bor-raez failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of Colombia. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Borraez’s unexhausted due process claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining this court lacks jurisdiction to consider contentions not raised to the agency).

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