NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN LOZANO FUERTE, No. 17-72745

Petitioner, Agency No. A205-317-830

v.

MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Juan Lozano Fuerte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of

removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

* 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). questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except

to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing

statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v.

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part

the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Lozano Fuerte does not contend that the BIA erred in

its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of asylum. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not

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

Fuerte also does not challenge the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal. Id.

Thus, we deny the petition for review as to asylum and cancellation of removal.

The agency did not err in finding that Lozano Fuerte did not establish

membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,

1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social

group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members

who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and

(3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-,

26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816

F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans”

2 17-72745 returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social group). To the extent

Lozano Fuerte proposes a new social group based on a status as a returnee

accompanied by minor United States citizen daughters, we lack jurisdiction to

consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks

jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lozano Fuerte

otherwise failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and a

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an

applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

Thus, Lozano Fuerte’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Lozano Fuerte failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and

crime in petitioner’s home country insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 17-72745