
    Felix INOCENTE-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71413.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 2, 2014.
    Alan Mark Kaufman, Esquire, David Joshua Kaufman, Esquire, Kaufman & Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Juria L. Jones, Trial, OIL, 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: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for deciskm without oral argument See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Felix Inocente-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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 factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Inocente-Hernandez contends he established a nexus to a protected ground based on his membership in a proposed social group of small landowners. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Inocente-Hernandez failed to establish any past or future harm was or would be on account of a protected ground. See 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”); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (petitioner failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground). In the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, Inocente-Hernandez’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (to qualify for withholding of removal, petitioner must show it is more likely than not he would be subjected to persecution on account of a protected ground).

Finally, Inocente-Hernandez does not substantively challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

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