
    Juan VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71885.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2011.
    Steven P. Brazelton, Law Offices of Steven P. Brazelton, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
    Christopher C. Fuller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, NVL-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision widiout oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Valdez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. INS v. Elias-Za-carias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Valdez’s contention that the IJ failed to analyze his CAT claim under the “willful blindness” standard set forth in Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.2003), is belied by the record. In addition, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Valdez has not demonstrated a likelihood of torture. See Santos-Lemus v. Muka-sey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir.2008) (CAT relief denied where the petitioner’s feared torture would be at the hands of private individuals, there was no evidence the police knew the petitioner had been targeted or threatened, and the petitioner’s mother was living safely in El Salvador).

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