Emerilda Ixcoy Vicente, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judges oral decision denying Vicentes applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
*
We deny the petition for review.
We have reviewed the administrative record, including the transcript of the merits hearing and all supporting evidence, and considered the arguments pressed on appeal in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agencys factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the immigration judges dispositive ruling, affirmed by the Board, that Vicente failed to show the requisite nexus between the asserted past persecution, or the feared future persecution, and a protected ground, see Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2017) (reiterating the established principle that “the asylum statute was not intended as a panacea for the numerous personal altercations that invariably characterize ․ social relationships” and distinguishing the type of personally motivated conflicts that generally “fall[ ] outside the scope of asylum protection” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). See also Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824-26 (4th Cir. 2020) (explaining that, in conducting substantial evidence review of the agencys nexus determination, this court “is limited to considering whether their conclusion is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence,” and holding that, under this standard, the record did not compel a conclusion contrary to the agencys ruling that petitioner failed to satisfy the nexus element (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Vicente (B.I.A. July 1, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
. Vicentes brief is silent as to the denial of protection under the CAT. Thus, this issue is waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that petitioners failure to address the denial of CAT relief waived the issue).
PER CURIAM:
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.