
    Melvin Ramiro MACHADO-ARTOLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60200
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 10, 2006.
    James W. Volberding, Tyler, TX, for Petitioner.
    James Joseph Fredricks, Robert B. Nicholson, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Saul Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    
      Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Melvin Ramiro Machado-Artola petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He claims: substantial evidence does not support the immigration judge’s (IJ) finding he was not persecuted on account of either his membership in a particular social group or his political opinion and was ineligible for relief under the CAT; and the IJ abused his discretion in excluding unauthenticated, foreign documents under 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 (detailing the standards for admission of foreign documents as evidence). Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, that decision is the final agency determination for judicial review. E.g., Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Machado was not persecuted on account of either his membership in a particular social group or his political opinion. See Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir.2001). Assuming arguendo “whistleblowers” can constitute the requisite particular social group for asylum purposes, the evidence does not compel a finding Machado was persecuted because he blew the whistle on his persecutors. It, instead, supports a conclusion that he was persecuted based on a personal dispute. Additionally, Machado has failed to provide compelling evidence that his persecutors were motivated by the alleged political aspects of his refusal to cooperate with the fraudulent timber scheme at issue; instead, it reflects they were interested in only the scheme’s economic potential. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir.2002).

Machado did not make the showing required to establish eligibility for asylum. Accordingly, he cannot meet the more stringent standard for establishing eligibility for withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir.2002).

Machado has failed to brief whether he is entitled to relief under the CAT. Therefore, that claim is waived. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993).

Finally, Machado has failed to show that he was substantially prejudiced by the exclusion of unauthenticated, foreign documents. As a result, we do not decide the issue whether they were properly excluded. See Molina v. Sewell, 983 F.2d 676, 678 (5th Cir.1993).

DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     