Case Name: Keimi Udiel REYES-MONZON, aka Keima Udiel Reyes-Monzon, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-25
Citations: 594 F. App'x 366
Docket Number: No. 12-73077
Parties: Keimi Udiel REYES-MONZON, aka Keima Udiel Reyes-Monzon, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 366–367

Head Matter:
Keimi Udiel REYES-MONZON, aka Keima Udiel Reyes-Monzon, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73077.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
Filed Feb. 25, 2015.
H. Raymond Fasano, The Law Offices of Madeo & Fasano, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Keimi Udiel Reyes-Monzon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for re view 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"). 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.
Reyes-Monzon does not challenge the BIA's denial of his asylum application as untimely. 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 deemed waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Reyes-Monzon's asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Reyes-Monzon failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground from a powerful individual in his hometown. See Molino-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2001) ("[Pjurely personal retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of political opinion.") (citation omitted); 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 reject Reyes-Monzon's contentions that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal standard or discounted his asserted membership in a particular social group. We lack jurisdiction to consider Reyes-Monzon's claimed fear of gangs in Guatemala because he did not exhaust this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004). Thus, Reyes-Monzon's withholding of removal claim fails. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1052.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA's denial of Reyes-Monzon's CAT claim because he did not show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by the government of Guatemala or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.