
    Diamond King Lim SANTOS, a.k.a. Diamond Lin Santos, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70095.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 4, 2010.
    Marienell Sapida, Esquire, Law Offices of Marienell B. Sapida, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
    Dana Michelle Camilleri, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Diamond King Lim Santos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Santos failed to establish past persecution as a result of the threats the New People’s Army made to his mother when he was a child. See Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir.2007). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Santos did not establish a clear probability of future persecution because Santos failed to show his mother’s problems from the threats was closely tied to him. See Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, Santos’ withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Santos’ CAT claim because Santos failed to establish it was more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to the Philippines. See El Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir.2004).

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