NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LEONEL CASTILLO CUANDO, No. 15-71599
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-886-501
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Jose Leonel Castillo Cuando, 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 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 for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Castillo Cuando does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to
the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish that the proposed particular
social groups defined as 1) “persons that have been threatened by criminal
organizations and whose family member has been killed by the criminal
organizations,” and 2) “persons who were extorted by extortionists in Mexico” are
legally cognizable. 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 Castillo
Cuando failed to show that the harm he suffered or fears in Mexico was or would
be on account of a protected ground, including family membership. See Ayala v.
Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular
social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or
will be on account of his membership in such group”); 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”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Castillo Cuando’s
2 15-71599
contentions regarding his membership in the proposed particular social group
defined as “a family whose father had been killed and which has been targeted by
an extortionist group” because he failed to raise this group to the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to
review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Castillo Cuando’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Castillo Cuando failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish
the necessary state action for CAT relief). Castillo Cuando’s contention that the
agency erred in denying CAT relief is unsupported by the record.
As stated in the court’s August 11, 2015 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-71599