facts do not establish past persecution. See Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th

Cir. 2000) (holding that unfulfilled threats do not constitute past persecution).

2. Gomez-Delgadillo failed to establish nexus to a protected ground. See

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended (“An alien’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. . . .”) (citations

2 omitted). The BIA was not required to address Gomez-Delgadillo’s argument that

he belonged to the particular social group of “landlords,” because that argument

was raised for the first time on appeal to the BIA. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924

F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 2019) (approving BIA’s “practice of refusing to address

arguments raised for the first time on appeal”). In any event, Gomez-Delgadillo

testified that criminals targeted him because they thought he informed police, not

because of his status as a landlord.

3. Four of Gomez-Delgadillo’s siblings and two of his children still live

in Mexico and have remained unharmed. See Cuadras v. I.N.S., 910 F.2d 567, 571

(9th Cir. 1990) (holding that a claim of persecution is undermined when relatives

reside in the country unmolested).

4. Because Gomez-Delgadillo failed to meet his burden of establishing

eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the higher burden of proof

required for withholding of removal. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226,

1230 (9th Cir. 2016).

5. Gomez-Delgadillo waived any argument as to his CAT claim because

he did not discuss the matter in his opening brief. See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr,

976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020). Regardless, Gomez-Delgadillo did not

establish that he “will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or

3 acquiescence of a public official.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183

(9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).

PETITION DENIED.

4