Alireza Assadi and his wife, Mehrnoosh Sabeti Sanat, both citizens of Iran proceeding pro se, petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their requests for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They argue that the physical mistreatment Assadi received during his 1986 and 1997 incarcerations in Iran following his engagement in anti-government demonstrations constitute past persecution based on his political opinion and torture sufficient to render *580them eligible for the requested relief. To the extent that the BIA adopted the findings and opinion of the immigration judge (IJ),1 we review the IJ and BIA’s decision to determine whether substantial evidence supports the rulings.2 Under the substantial evidence standard of review, we may not reverse a factual determination unless we find that the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.3
Withholding of removal requires the petitioner to demonstrate a “clear probability” of persecution if repatriated.4 If Assadi establishes that he suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground, it is presumed that his life or freedom would be threatened in the future.5 Additionally Assadi need not provide evidence that he would be singled out individually for future persecution if he demonstrates both a pattern or practice of persecution of a similarly situated class of people in Iran and his inclusion in that group.6
The petitioners challenge as unsupported by the evidence the BIA’s determination that Assadi did not need medical treatment upon his release from prison and, therefore, that his physical mistreatment while incarcerated did not rise to the level of past persecution.7 We hold that the BIA could reasonablely draw the inference from the testimony of both Assadi and Sanat that Assadi did not seek medical care because he did not need such treatment. Moreover, the petitioners’ argument that the Iranian government engages in a pattern or practice of persecution against persons similarly situated to Assadi is conclusory, devoid of reference to specific evidence in the record.8
Assadi lived in Iran for the ten years in between his two terms of imprisonment, both the consequence of a mass arrest. He had no affiliation with the second protest, in which he participated on impulse. He maintained employment and exercised his freedom to travel outside of *581the country. The BIA’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and the petitioners, therefore, have not established that the evidence compels a conclusion of eligibility for withholding of removal.
Similarly, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that Assadi is entitled to relief under the CAT. Claims based on CAT differ from those for withholding of removal because the mistreatment need not involve one of the five impermissible categories and since proof of torture, rather than persecution, is required.9 In order to obtain relief, a petitioner must show that it is “more likely than not” that he would be tortured if removed.10 Assuming that the physical abuse he suffered rises to the level of torture, Assadi was incarcerated only as a result of his participation in two isolated acts of civil disobedience and otherwise lived without incident in the ten-year interim. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision, and we, therefore, are not compelled to find that it is more likely than not that Assadi would be tortured if removed.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.