NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO-MORA, No. 14-71751
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-289-451
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio-Mora, 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 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Antonio-Mora established
extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, we deny the petition as to Antonio-Mora’s
asylum claim.
The agency did not err in finding that Antonio-Mora failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” does
not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Oritz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning Mexicans from the United
States” does not constitute a particular social group). We lack jurisdiction to
consider Antonio-Mora’s argument about a new social group that he did not raise
to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below). Thus, we
2 14-71751
deny the petition for review as to Antonio-Mora’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Antonio-Mora failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon
his return to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(possibility of torture too speculative).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Antonio-Mora’s contention as to his
prior attorney’s conduct before the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d
1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (“We . . . require an alien who argues ineffective
assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the
issue to the BIA.”); Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A petitioner
must make a motion for the BIA to reopen before we will hold that he has
exhausted his [ineffective assistance] claims.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-71751