22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T524,MEMORANDUM Martin Magana-Pardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31 (a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his 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, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo 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). We reject Magana Pardo’s contention that the IJ failed to consider evidence. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T55b,

MEMORANDUM

Martin Magana-Pardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31 (a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from his 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, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

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

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Magana-Pardo 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).

We reject Magana Pardo’s contention that the IJ failed to consider evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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