NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRINIDAD MARCIAL LORENZO, AKA No. 17-73508
Jose Almazan,
Agency No. A088-884-126
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Trinidad Marcial Lorenzo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding for removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, except to the extent
that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of governing statutes and
regulations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review
the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Marcial Lorenzo
demonstrated changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4).
As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
finding that Marcial Lorenzo failed to establish a nexus between a protected
ground and the harm his family members suffered. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,
600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Asylum is not available to victims of
indiscriminate violence, unless they are singled out on account of a protected
ground”); Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1180 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting
that evidence of violence directed at an applicant’s family members does not
necessarily establish that the applicant will be individually targeted for
persecution). Further, the agency did not err in finding that “adult male recent
Mexican non-consensual returnees” is not a cognizable social group for
2 17-73508
withholding of removal purposes. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226,
1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that Mexicans returning home who behave
like “wealthy Americans” do not constitute a cognizable social group); Delgado-
Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1151-52 (explaining that “returning Mexicans from the United
States” is not a cognizable social group). Thus, Marcial Lorenzo’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Marical Lorenzo failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he
would be tortured at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the
Mexican government. See Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152 (explaining that
generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is insufficient to meet the
standard for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-73508