MEMORANDUM **
Margarito Jimenez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIAs determination that Jimenez-Ramirez failed to establish he suffered past persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (no past persecution where a murder and attempted murder were not part of a pattern of persecution closely tied to the petitioner); see also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091-93 (9th Cir. 2010) (no past persecution where petitioner was not personally harmed and the persecution his brother experienced did not directly impact petitioner). Substantial evidence also supports the BIAs determination that Jimenez-Ramirez failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in Mexico. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not present compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution); see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Jimenez-Ramirezs asylum claim fails.
Because Jimenez-Ramirez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Jimenez-Ramirez does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the agencys determination that he failed to establish that he was entitled to CAT relief. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2008).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agencys discretionary determination that Jimenez-Ramirez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005) (the courts jurisdiction over challenges to the agencys discretionary determination is limited to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law). We reject Jimenez-Ramirezs contention that the agencys denial of his cancellation of removal claim violated his right to due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim); see also Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (applicant failed to overcome the presumption that the BIA considered all relevant record evidence).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.