
    Selvin Omar QUINTANILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73899.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 23, 2014.
    Randy Alexander, Law Offices of Randy Alexander, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Oil, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Dara Smith, 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: CANBY, SILVERMAN, 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

Selvin Omar Quintanilla, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Quintanilla did not suffer past persecution and does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See id. at 482-83, 112 S.Ct. 812; see also Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner’s fear of future persecution was speculative). Accordingly, Quintanilla’s asylum claim fails.

Because Quintanilla failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, it follows that he has not met the higher standard for withholding of removal. See Ze-hatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Quintanilla does not make any arguments regarding 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     