
    Kiran PRAJAPATI, a.k.a. Kunal Patel, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71041.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2011.
    Garish Sarin, Esquire, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Aaron D. Nelson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kiran Prajapati, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 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, Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the attacks upon Prajapa-ti and his family were tied to money disputes and that Prajapati failed to establish that a protected ground was at least one central reason for the attacks. See Parus-simova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Accordingly, Prajapati’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

We do not address Prajapati’s CAT claim because he did not specifically and distinctly challenge it in his opening brief. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir.2005) (failure to raise a claim results in waiver).

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