MEMORANDUM **

Tejinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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 the agency’s factual findings. Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 998 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, even though Singh suffered past persecution, conditions have changed in India such that Singh no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution. See Gonzalez-Hernandez, 336 F.3d at 1000-01 (individualized analysis of changed country conditions rebutted presumption of well-founded fear). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id at 1001 fn. 5.

*645 We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s unexhausted claim that he is eligible for humanitarian asylum. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief, because Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to India. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.