NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 16 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WADNER LAMARRE,                                 No.    19-72978

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A209-867-165

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Wadner Lamarre, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.


      *
             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).
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the

petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lamarre

failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on

account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 

, 1191 (9th

Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on

account of a protected ground); Ayala v. Holder, 

, 1097 (9th Cir.

2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant

must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in

such group.”). Thus, Lamarre’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

      Lamarre does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 

, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is otherwise

denied.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                    19-72978