Saiyad Maknojia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of his application for withholding of removal under § 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 Because the BIA’s decisions on both counts are supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. 2

Maknojia bears the burden of proving by a “clear probability” 3 that it is more likely than not that, if returned to his home country of India, “[his] life or freedom would be threatened ... because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The IJ had substantial evidence, see Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994), that Maknojia failed to meet this burden.

Although Maknojia alleged that on several occasions he and his family had faced persecution on account of being Muslims living in a predominantly Hindu country, he did not show that such persecution would likely occur upon his return. Furthermore, the IJ noted that approximately 120,000,000 Muslims live in India, and Maknojia did not satisfactorily explain why he could not relocate to a predominantly Muslim area in India to be free from religious reprisals. 4

Likewise, Maknojia has not proven that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Under the CAT, he need not demonstrate a connection between the probability of future torture and his race, religion, nationality, or political or social affiliation. Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d *188 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002). But, he must meet the “higher bar” of proving the likelihood of torture as opposed to mere persecution. Id. Because his evidence consists mainly of the same series of previous unfortunate events used to support his persecution claim, the BIA did not err in finding that he failed to meet his burden of proving that he -will probably face torture if returned to India.

The petition for review is DENIED.