
    Anastacio GUEVARA-GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71675.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 3, 2011.
    
      Anastacio Guevara-Guzman, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anastacio Guevara-Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir.2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Guevara-Guzman established changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse the delay in filing his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Guevara-Guzman’s asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Guevara-Guzman’s withholding of removal claim because he failed to establish gang members have harmed him or will harm him on account of a protected ground. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856 (evidence supported conclusion that gang victimized the petitioner for economic and personal reasons rather than on account of a protected ground); see also Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected groundWe lack jurisdiction to consider Guevara-Guzman’s contentions based on being a member of a class of “small merchants” or “small businessmen” and his contentions based on imputed political opinion because he did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Guevara-Guzman’s withholding of removal claim.

Finally, Guevara-Guzman fails to raise any substantive challenge to the denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed waived).

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