Opinion
No. 09-70369 Agency No. A099-445-647
08-12-2012
ZHANGUO QUI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Zhanguo Qui, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se 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"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Qui's contention that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal as a member of a particular social group of "property owners in a specific area that were all affected by the same road project" because he did not raise this claim to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that Qui did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner failed to establish authorities imputed a political opinion to him); see also Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent 'one central reason' for an asylum applicant's persecution"). Accordingly, Qui's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Molina-Morales, 237 F.3d at 1052.
Finally, Qui does not raise any arguments in his opening brief regarding the agency's denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.