NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMILIO DEJESUS-ZARRAGA, AKA No. 16-73609
Emilio DeJesus,
Agency No. A206-406-559
Petitioner,
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.
Emilio DeJesus-Zarraga, 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,
*
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). DeJesus-Zarraga’s request
for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
In his opening brief, DeJesus-Zarraga fails to contest the BIA’s
determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s dispositive finding that his
asylum application was untimely. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174,
1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in
waiver). Thus, we deny the petition as to DeJesus-Zarraga’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that DeJesus-Zarraga
failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted in Mexico 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.”).
Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider the particular social groups DeJesus-
Zarraga presents for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in
2 16-73609
administrative proceedings below). Thus, DeJesus-Zarraga’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because DeJesus-Zarraga failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be
tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
3 16-73609