
    Victor Hugo CERVANTES-GONZALEZ, also known as Victor Hugo Cervantes, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-60280
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Jan. 9, 2014.
    Salvador Colon, Law Office of Salvador Colon, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    
      Melissa Katherine Lott, Trial Attorney, Julie Marie Iversen, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Tangerlia Cox, Joseph Anthony O’Connell, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Victor Hugo Cervantes-Gonzalez (Cervantes), a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks our review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his' appeal of an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied his application for withholding of removal. Cervantes asserts that he is entitled to withholding of removal because he suffered persecution in Mexico when individuals who had taken a vehicle from Cervantes without paying for it kidnapped and beat Cervantes’s brother and threatened to kill Cervantes after he reported the theft to the police. The BIA determined that Cervantes had failed to establish past persecution based on his membership in a particular social group.

Cervantes has failed to brief sufficiently that he was persecuted on the basis of his membership in a particular social group. Pursuant to Rule 28(a)(8)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s argument must contain the reasons for the requested relief with citation to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on which he relies. Cervantes’s brief fails to meet this standard, as it contains only speculative and conclusional assertions relating to past persecution; he makes no argument relating to his membership in a particular social group. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003) (holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned). Furthermore, Cervantes’s conclusional assertions are insufficient to establish that he is entitled to withholding of removal. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th Cir.2012); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir.2004). Consequently, Cervantes’s petition for review is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     