
    Carlos Eduardo ZARCENO; Iris Jeannette Zarceno, aka Iris Janet Hernandez de Zarceno; Andrea Sofia Zarceno Hernandez, aka Andrea Zarceno Hernandez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-74002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 6, 2011.
    
    Filed June 10, 2011.
    
      Lesley Irizarry-Hougan, L.I.H. Law, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.
    Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-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: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Eduardo Zarceño appeals from the BIA’s denial of his asylum petition. Zarceño alleges persecution by the Salvadoran “Mara 18” gang. He alleges that he was targeted by the gang because he is a lawyer and he refused to represent members of the gang in criminal matters.

We review a denial of asylum by the BIA for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). This means that “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), we must affirm.

Even if we assume that lawyers who refuse to represent gang members are a particular social group as contemplated by the asylum laws, and even if we assume that Mara 18 was a state actor or could not be controlled by state authorities, there was sufficient evidence for the BIA to conclude that Zarceño was not persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group. At his asylum hearing, Zarceño testified that he was approached by the gang for money. When asked by. the government’s lawyer why he was targeted, Zarceño responded, “It was not for political motivations, it was for monetary motivation. They thought because I’m a lawyer that I have money.” This was sufficient for the BIA to conclude that Zarceño was not persecuted on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481-82, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). For similar reasons, this was sufficient for the BIA to deny Zarceno’s application for withholding of removal.

As Zarceño provides no argument on appeal why the BIA’s denial of protection under CAT was in err, we do not address his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

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