Jose Perez-Machic v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE PEREZ-MACHIC,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70469
Agency No. A201-240-189
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Perez-Machic, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
FILED
DEC 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.
Perez-Machic does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding
the agency’s determination that his asylum application was time-barred, or the
agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Perez-Machic
failed to establish past persecution or that it is more likely than not he will be
persecuted in the future on account of a protected ground. See 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”); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (petitioner failed to
establish a nexus to a protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition for review as
to Perez-Machic’s withholding of removal claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-70469

-- 2 of 2 --