Mario Cavinal Villatoro v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO CAVINAL VILLATORO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70267
Agency No. A096-493-797
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
MAY 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

(“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 (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.
12-70267 2

-- 2 of 2 --