FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE FELIPE AREVALO-TICAS, No. 11-73285
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-016-851
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Felipe Arevalo-Ticas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Arevalo-Ticas
failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground based on threats and extortion by gang members in El Salvador.
See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“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.”); see also 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”). We do not consider Arevalo-Ticas’s social group claim because the
BIA did not decide the issue, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829
(9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Arevalo-
Ticas does not contend the BIA erred in finding that his social group claim was not
properly before it, see Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.
1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Thus, Arevalo-Ticas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001).
2 11-73285
We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Arevalo-Ticas’s CAT claim,
because he failed to exhaust his challenge before the BIA. See Barron, 358 F.3d at
677-78.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73285