MARVIN CLAVEL, AKA Marvin Stanly Clavel Rodriguez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN CLAVEL, AKA Marvin Stanly
Clavel Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72906
Agency No. A047-298-208
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-72906
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.

-- 2 of 2 --