
    Eduardo Ramos GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-71726
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 11, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed October 20, 2017
    Aaron T. Keesler, Keesler Immigration Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    Jesse David Lorenz, Esquire, 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: O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
    
      
       The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Ramos Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and is therefore not entitled to relief from a reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833-36 (9th Cir. 2016).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Guzman failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would suffer future persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “vague threats” do not support withholding of removal). Any past persecution that Guzman suffered was not on account of a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Guzman failed to demonstrate that he is more likely than not to be tortured in Mexico if he were deported there. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (denying CAT claim because fear of torture was speculative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     