
    Jose PEREZ-MACHIC, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70469.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2014.
    Jose Perez-Machic, Tacoma, WA, pro se.
    Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony John Messuri, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Perez-Machic, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U-S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we deny the petition for review.

' Perez-Machic does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding the agency’s determination that his asylum application was time-barred, or the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Perez-Machic failed to establish past persecution or that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in the future 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). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Perez-Machic’s withholding of removal claim.

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