
    Oscar Saul VELAZQUEZ-PRADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72157
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017 
    
    Filed July 7, 2017
    Monica Ganjoo, Esquire, Attorney, Gan-joo Law Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    Lauren Fascett, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Saul Velazquez-Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in finding that Velazquez-Prado failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.

Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Velazquez-Prado’s CAT claim because he did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its .consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

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