MEMORANDUM **

Luciana Tello-Sanchez and Esteban Reyes-Flores, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners failed to establish that they suffered harm or have a fear of future harm on account of a protected ground, as opposed to a personal dispute over land. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the record supports the BIA’s finding that, even assuming indigenous landowners are a particular social group, petitioners failed to establish a nexus between the harm they experienced and their membership in that group, remand in light of Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) and Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), is unnecessary. We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unex-hausted claim that Tello-Sanchez is a member of a particular social group consisting of police informants. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail.

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to establish a likelihood of torture if they return to Mexico. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006). Because petitioners have *794 not shown a likelihood of torture, we reject petitioners’ request to remand in light of Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.