NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO DAVID TORRES, No. 16-71850
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-081-956
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Francisco David Torres, 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”). Our
*
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).
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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency’s determination that Torres failed to establish any nexus to a
protected ground is supported by the record. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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 therefore do not remand for the agency to apply Barajas-
Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the protected
ground need only be “a reason” for withholding of removal claims, whereas it must
be “one central reason” for asylum claims). We lack jurisdiction to consider the
new particular social group proposed in Torres’s opening brief, “family members
of taxi drivers targeted by cartels,” because he did not raise this group before 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).
Thus, Torres’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Torres failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
2 16-71850
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-71850