NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID RUBALCAVA RAMOS, No. 15-72710
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-721-273
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
David Rubalcava Ramos, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Rubalcava Ramos’ contention as to the IJ’s
denial of his asylum claim because he failed to raise it to the BIA, and we lack
jurisdiction to consider his contention as to cancellation of removal that he raises
for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-
78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the
agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Rubalcava Ramos
failed to establish that the harm he suffered in Mexico was on account of 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”).
2 15-72710
Further, the agency did not err in finding that Rubalcava Ramos failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans”
returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social group); see also
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding
“returning Mexicans from the United States” does not constitute a particular social
group). Thus, Rubalcava Ramos’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Rubalcava Ramos failed to show it is more likely than not that he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico.
See Ramirez-Munoz, 816 F.3d at 1230.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-72710