NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ALVARO RODRIGUEZ-AVENDANO, No. 16-73940
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-151-054
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.
Alvaro Rodriguez-Avendano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se 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
*
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).
(“CAT”). 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.
Rodriguez-Avendano does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding
that his asylum application is time-barred. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083,
1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). Thus,
we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Rodriguez-
Avendano failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016)
(“imputed wealthy Americans” not cognizable as a particular social group);
Delgado-Oritz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-53 (9th Cir. 2010) (“returning
Mexicans from the United States” not cognizable as a particular social group);
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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, Rodriguez-Avendano’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
2 16-73940
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rodriguez-Avendano failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured by the government of Mexico, or with its consent or acquiescence. See
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Avendano’s contentions
as to voluntary departure because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See
Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (court lacks jurisdiction to
review issues or claims not presented to the agency). Similarly, we lack
jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Avendano’s argument that the IJ violated his
right to due process by failing to advise him of alleged eligibility for administrative
closure because he failed to exhaust this argument before the BIA. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-73940