
    Patricia Ortiz SALINAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-74036
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 22, 2017
    Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu Ali, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner
    Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Patricia Ortiz Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ortiz Salinas failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Ortiz Salinas failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (fear of torture speculative).

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