Barbara Ruiz-Velasco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that she did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus is not entitled to relief from her reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, *2 Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

We do not consider the materials attached to Ruiz-Velasco’s opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Ruiz-Velasco failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1016, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Ruiz-Velasco failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Andrade-Garcia , 828 F.3d at 836-37.

We reject Ruiz-Velasco’s contentions regarding the conduct of her hearing. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“An immigration decision violates due process if the proceeding were so fundamentally unfair that the [petitioner] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case.” (internal citation and quotation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 15-70884

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).