
    Domingo Antonio ALAS-RECINOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71026.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 12, 2014.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Judith Roberta O’Sullivan, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Matthew B. George, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Domingo Antonio Alas-Recinos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Rahimzadeh v. Holder, 613 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir.2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Alas-Recinos testified he was the victim of two robberies, which he did not report to police. The record does not compel the conclusion that the government of El Salvador was or would be unable or unwilling to protect Alas-Recinos. See id. at 920-23 (discussing various means by which a petitioner may fill the “gap in proof’ left by the absence of a report to the police). Thus, his asylum claim fails.

Because Alas-Recinos failed to establish eligibility for asylum, his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See id. at 923.

Finally, Alas-Recinos does not 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.
     