
    Manuel de Jesus LUE-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71968.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 28, 2011.
    Rose Kasusky, Esquire, Kasusky Law, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel de Jesus Lue-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because the unfulfilled, anonymous threats to Lue-Martinez did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (holding unfulfilled threats and an incident of physical violence did not establish past persecution). Likewise, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Lue-Martinez established a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir.2000) (holding similarly situated, unharmed family members undermine future fear); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (holding future fear is speculative if petitioner fails to show government is unable or unwilling to protect him).

Because Lue-Martinez has not “specifically and distinctly argued and raised” the issue of CAT relief, he has waived that claim. Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 919 (9th Cir.2001); Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005).

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