FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 26 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ANTONIO MADRIGAL- No. 15-72019
CAMACHO, AKA Moises Cisnero-
Garcia, Agency No. A077-299-714
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Antonio Madrigal Camacho, 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 decision denying his application for
*
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).
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition.
Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law
that we review de novo, Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010), but
we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of 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. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827
F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016).
The BIA did not err in finding that Madrigal Camacho has not established
membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,
1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-G-
V-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Madrigal Camacho has not established
that persons returning to Mexico from the United States who are believed to be
wealthy would be perceived by society as a particular social group. See Barbosa v.
Barr, 919 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding that individuals returning to
Mexico from the United States who are believed to be wealthy does not constitute
a particular social group). Madrigal Camacho’s contentions that he belongs to two
other particular social groups were never presented to the agency and are therefore
2
unexhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
lack jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Finally, Madrigal
Camacho has not established that he would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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, Madrigal
Camacho’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. The
record does not compel the conclusion that Madrigal Camacho is “more likely than
not” to be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he
returns to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Madrigal Camacho’s CAT claim also fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3