
    Santiago OSORIO-AVILA, aka Santiago Osorio, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73073
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 23, 2016
    Mario Acosta, Jr., Law Office of Mario Acosta, Jr., Los Angeles, CA.
    Matthew Allan Spurlock, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santiago Osorio-Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge Osorio-Avila makes to the IJ’s past persecution finding because he did not distinctly raise the issue to the BIA. Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 n.5 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring issue exhaustion).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Osorio-Avila failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution if he returns to Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility, of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Osorio-Avila’s withholding of removal claim.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Osorio-Avila faded to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Mexican government if he is removed to Mexico. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of CAT relief where similarly-situated family member remained safely in hometown), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus, we also deny the petition for review as to Osorio-Avila’s CAT claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW IS 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.
     