MEMORANDUM **

Gabriel Villasenor-Murga and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing then-appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that a fundamental change in circumstances, namely petitioners’ sale of their land, rebuts the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution based on their participation in the land colony. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i); see also Tamang, 598 F.3d at 1093 (undisputed facts from petitioner’s own testimony regarding change of circumstances constituted substantial evidence). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because Villasenor-Murga did not establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Villasenor-Murga failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Villasenor-Murga’s contention, the agency adequately addressed his CAT claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.