NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO CLAUDIO-GUADARRAMA, No. 17-70007
AKA Tomas Claudia, AKA Tomas Claudio,
Agency No. A095-807-985
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Santiago Claudio-Guadarrama, 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
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 for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). 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 deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Claudio-Guadarrama does not contend that the BIA
erred in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination of
ineligibility for asylum and denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder,
706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued
in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Claudio-
Guadarrama failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced, or fears he will
experience, was or would be 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”).
The agency did not err in determining that Claudio-Guadarrama’s proposed
particular social group, “returning Mexicans from the United States perceived to
2 17-70007
have money,” was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th
Cir. 2016) (“The applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of
members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with
particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (citation
omitted)); see also Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019)
(individuals “returning to Mexico [from] the United States [who] are believed to be
wealthy” does not constitute a particular social group (alterations in original));
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“returning
Mexicans from the United States” does not constitute a particular social group).
Thus, Claudio-Guadarrama’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider any new proposed particular social groups
because Claudio-Guadarrama failed to raise them to the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 17-70007