NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERBER NOLASCO

- GOMEZ ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16

- 7 0237 Agency No. A 200

- 032

- 686

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 1 1 , 2022 * * Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and EZRA , ** * District Judge. Herber Nolasco

- Gomez , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable David Alan Ezra , United States Senior District Judge for the District of Hawaii , sitting by perman ent designation of Chief Justice Roberts on the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

. 

# FILED

APR 13 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

. We possess jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and w e deny Nolasco

- Gomez’s petition

. 1. In 2011, the BIA remanded Nolasco

- Gomez’s request for withhold ing of removal to the IJ but affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum because his application was not filed within a ye a r of entering the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208(4)(a). When Nolasco

- Gomez appealed the IJ’s denial of withholding on remand to the BIA, he did not again raise his claim for asylum. Nonetheless, we have jurisdiction to consider his asylum claim beca use the BIA has ruled on it. See Go v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011). However, Nolasco

- Gomez’s brief before us does not address the timeliness of his application for asylum. Accordingly, he has waived his challenge to the denial of asylum. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)( 8 )(A); Martinez

- Serrano v. I.N.S ., 94 F .3 d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”); Corro

- Barragan v. Holder , 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) ( same).
2. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Arrey v. Barr , 916 F.3d 1149, 1157 (9 th Cir. 2019). Here, s ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination s that: (1) Nolasco

- Gomez was not credible because of multiple inconsistencies i n his testimony and his mother’s testimony ;3

and (2) he had not shown past persecution due to a protected ground because he failed to establish a nexus between his alleged persecution and his membership in his father’s family. The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by inconsistencies as to the manner of Nolasco

- Gomez’s father’s death and factual inconsistencies in
Nolasco

- Gomez’s and his mother’s testimon ies . For instance, Nolasco

- Gomez’s initial declaration alleged a single incident of men following him home and throwing rocks at his house. But he testified about three incidents, while his mother testified there was only one incident. These inconsistencies are significant because they form the basis of Nolasco

- Gomez’s claim of past per secution. The record does not compel a finding of credibility.
3. Even if Nolasco

- Gomez were determined to be credible, to be eligible for withholding of removal , he must demonstrat e a presumption of fear of future persecution based on past persecution, or independently show that it is more likely than not that future persecution would occur. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1); Tamang v. Holder , 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010)

. The persec ution must be on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1). Nolasco

- Gomez does not claim that he has ever been personally threatened by Roque Hernandez, who Nolasco

- Gom ez claims killed his father. He offers no4

corroborating evidence that the men in masks who allegedly followed him home and threw rocks at his house did so on behalf of Hernandez or because Nolasco

Gomez was his father’s son. Indeed, there is no evidence that Nolasco

- Gomez is likely to suffe r physical injury on account of membership in his father’s family. Nolasco

- Gomez has not shown that he is entitled to withholding of removal.
4

. Finally, Nolasco

- Gomez may not challenge the denial of CAT relief. On remand, the IJ denied Nolasco

- Gomez’s request for CAT relief. But in his appeal to the BIA, he failed to raise this issue. Accordingly, he has waived his right to raise it before the Ninth Cir cuit. Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). The petition for review is DENIED.