
    Luis RIVERA-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72073.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 21, 2011.
    Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, Oil, John Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, ORP-District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Rivera-Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Rivera-Torres does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum application is time-barred. 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).

The record does not compel the conclusion that the childhood sexual molestation Rivera-Torres suffered or the harm he fears was or will be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (to reverse the agency’s finding, “we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”) (emphasis in original); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Rivera-Torres’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Rivera-Torres’s contention that there is a pattern of violence against children in Mexico because he did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not presented below).

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.
     