NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 28 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS BAROJAS-GONZALEZ, No. 14-72544
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-853-384
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Barojas-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection 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 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 review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Barojas-Gonzalez
established extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum
application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d
1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Barojas-Gonzalez’s asylum claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to review Barojas-Gonzalez’s contention regarding past
persecution because it was not raised to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).
The agency did not err in finding that Barojas-Gonzalez failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Holder, 816 F.3d
1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning
to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,
2 14-72544
600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the
United States” did not constitute a particular social group). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s finding that Barojas-Gonzalez otherwise failed to establish
that any harm he fears in Mexico will be on account of a protected ground. 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”). Thus, Barojas-Gonzalez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Barojas-Gonzalez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See
Ramirez-Munoz, 816 F.3d at 1230.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-72544