
    Calixto SEGURA-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed June 25, 2015.
    Alex Galvez, Counsel, Law Office Alex Galvez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Kevin James Conway, Esquire, DOJ-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: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, petitioner’s request for oral argument, made in his opening brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Calixto Segura-Mendoza, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Segura-Mendoza has not challenged the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum claim is time-barred. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues which are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Segura-Mendoza’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Segura-Mendoza’s experiences with FMLN members and gang members in El Salvador did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (record did not compel finding threats against petitioner, including death threats, constituted past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Segura-Mendoza failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be persecuted if returned to El Salvador. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.2003) (to qualify for withholding of removal, petitioner must show that, it is more probable than not that he would suffer future persecution). Thus, Segura-Mendoza’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Segura-Mendoza failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in El Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     