NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO ANTONIO RAMIREZ MACIAS, No. 16-73923
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-975-869
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Marco Antonio Ramirez Macias, 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 applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramirez
Macias failed to establish he would be persecuted 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”).
Because Ramirez Macias does not challenge the agency’s determination that
his returnee-based particular social group is not cognizable, this issue is waived.
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).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez Macias’s particular social group
related to gang opposition because the BIA did not err in declining to consider it.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must
exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez Macias’s contentions regarding his
religion because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See id. Thus,
Ramirez Macias’s withholding of removal claim fails.
2 16-73923
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Ramirez Macias failed to show it is more likely than not he will be
tortured if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68
(9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
We reject Ramirez Macias’s contention that the agency erred in its legal
analysis or ignored evidence or arguments in denying his CAT claim.
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-73923