Oneyda RAMIREZ-ESCOBAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 546 F. App'x 717

MEMORANDUM Oneyda Ramirez-Eseobar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that even though Ramirez^ Escobar suffered past persecution on account of an imputed political opinion based on her relationship with her ex-boyfriend, her presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted by a fundamental change in circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(A). Further, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Ramirez-Eseobar did not otherwise establish a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative).

Accordingly, Ramirez-Eseobar’s asylum claim fails. Because Ramirez-Eseobar failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1001 n. 5. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Ramirez-Escobar failed to establish that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by the Guatemalan government or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Escobar’s contention that her case warrants a favorable exercise of pros-ecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) (order). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.