no cognizable constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 2005). Turning to the remaining claims, we review the rejection of Yuman’s withholding of removal and CAT claim and Yocari’s asylum claim under the substantial evidence standard, and must affirm even.if it is possible to draw differing conclusions from the evidence. Pedro-Mateo v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 1147,1150 (9th Cir.2000). In light of the detailed country reports in the record below, we conclude substantial evidence supported the rejection of those claims on the grounds that changed country conditions in Guatemala rebutted any claims of potential future persecution. Cf. I.N.S. v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (<HOLDING>). We recognize that there was contrary evidence
holding physical conditions justify tolling when those conditions impair cognitive function or the ability to communicate recognizing the improved conditions in postcivil war guatemala recognizing that the court has the power to grant leave upon certain conditions recognizing the undesirability of prison conditions litigation recognizing a liberty interest in reasonably safe conditions of confinement