
    Ricardo VINCENTE-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Ricardo Vicente Lopez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73655.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Dec. 19, 2013.
    Adolfo Ojeda-Casimiro, Ojeda Law, Duvall, WA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Lori Warlick, Trial, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Vincente-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Vincente-Lopez 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).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Vineente-Lopez’s experiences with his neighbors in Guatemala, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination Vincente-Lopez failed to establish it is more likely that not his life or freedom would be threatened in Guatemala. See id. at 1018 (possibility of future persecution too speculative); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743-44 (9th Cir.2008) (continued safety of family in hometown undermined future fear). Consequently, Vicente-Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection because Vincente-Lopez 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 Guatemala. 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.
     