FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIMON ANDRES ACEVEDO- No. 11-73897 RAMIREZ, Agency No. A200-952-711 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Simon Andres Acevedo-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 11-73897 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo due process claims. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Acevedo- Ramirez failed to establish past mistreatment or a fear of future mistreatment in Colombia on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Consequently, his withholding of removal claim fails. The BIA found Acevedo-Ramirez did not contest the IJ’s finding that his asylum application was untimely and that no exception to the one-year filing deadline applied. Acevedo-Ramirez does not challenge the BIA’s finding. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Even if his asylum application were timely, Acevedo-Martinez’s asylum claim would fail. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). 2 11-73897 Acevedo-Martinez does not raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259 (“[i]ssues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned”). We reject Acevedo-Martinez’s due process contentions regarding the IJ’s treatment of his claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). Finally, we reject Acevedo-Martinez’s request for a remand. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 11-73897