
    Sergio Roni LOPEZ MAZARIEGOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71870.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 9, 2012.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Roni Lopez Mazariegos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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 the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo due process claims, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

Lopez Mazariegos claims that in the early 1990’s, due to his service in the Civil Defense in Guatemala, he received two notes from guerrillas threatening death or kidnaping. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Lopez Mazarie-gos failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“[t]o reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it”). We reject Lopez Mazariegos’ contention that the agency erred in failing to address the social group aspect of his claim, because he did not make this argument to the BIA. Contrary to Lopez Mazariegos’ contention, the IJ and BIA adequately explained their decisions. Accordingly, Lopez Mazariegos’ asylum claim fails.

Because Lopez Mazariegos 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 Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

Lopez Mazariegos failed to challenge the BIA’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).

Finally, we reject Lopez Mazariegos’ argument that the BIA did not provide a meaningful review. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

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