
    Marvin CLAVEL, aka Marvin Stanly Clavel Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72906
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    June 22, 2016
    Ramiro Jose Lluis, Law Offices of Ramiro J. Lluis, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Andrea Gevas, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marvin Clavel, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the social group Clavel proposes for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below). Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Clavel failed to argue a protected ground was a central reason for the harm he experienced in the past and fears in the future. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (Under the REAL ID, applicant must prove that a protected ground represents ‘one central reason’ for persecution). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, Clavel makes no arguments challenging the agency’s denial of 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 FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
     