Rene Flores GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent, 591 F. App'x 575

MEMORANDUM Rene Flores Gomez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the death threats made against Flores Gomez during the Salvadoran civil war did not rise to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (record did not compel finding threats against petitioner, including death threats, constituted past persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Flores Gomez failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution by guerrillas or the FMLN if he returns to El Salvador. See Nagoulko v.

INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (possibility of persecution was “too speculative”). We lack jurisdiction to review the social-group and gang-related claims Flores Gomez raises in his opening brief because he did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). Thus, Flores Gomez’s asylum claim fails. Because Flores Gomez failed to meet the lower standard of proof for asylum, his claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471, 483-85, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.