
    Mario Cavinal VILLATORO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70267.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 21, 2015.
    Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano Attorney at Law, Santa Clarita, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Todd J. Cochran, 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: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mario Cavinal Villatoro, 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 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 review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

In rejecting Villatoro’s asylum claim on nexus grounds, the BIA found Villatoro did not establish an imputed political opinion resulting from his resistance to extortion demands, and it rejected his claimed “whistle-blower” status. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s findings. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”). Thus, Villatoro’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Finally, Villatoro does not challenge the BIA’s rejection of his social group and CAT claims. 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     