
    Guillermo CASTILLO AVILA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71134
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    FILED May 31, 2016
    Guillermo Castillo Avila, Pro Se.
    Joseph Anthony O’Connell, 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: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and, OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guillermo Castillo Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Castillo Avila’s contention that his conviction does not bar his claims for asylum and withholding of removal, and his contentions regarding cancellation of removal, because he failed to raise these issues to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues in administrative proceedings below).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Castillo Avila’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Garcid-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1034; Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011) (“claims of possible torture remain speculative”).

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