Case Name: Walter MIRA, a.k.a. Walter Ernesto Mira Garcia, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-17
Citations: 579 F. App'x 550
Docket Number: No. 11-72897
Parties: Walter MIRA, a.k.a. Walter Ernesto Mira Garcia, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 550–551

Head Matter:
Walter MIRA, a.k.a. Walter Ernesto Mira Garcia, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72897.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2014.
Filed June 17, 2014.
Monica Ganjoo, Esquire, Ganjoo Law Office, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Channah Farber, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Home land Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Walter Mira, 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 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1182, 1184—85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Mira failed to raise any substantive challenge to either the agency's determination that his asylum claim was time-barred, or the agency's denial of his withholding of removal claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Mira failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008). Mira contends the agency erred by failing to consider the two articles he submitted regarding gang-related- violence and other "human rights problems." We reject this contention because Mira does not point to any information in the articles relevant to his claim that he faces a likelihood of torture with the consent or acquiescence of the Salvadorean government. We also reject Mira's contention that the BIA applied an incorrect standard for government acquiescence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.