NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 18 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN MANUEL ORDAZ, AKA                         No.    18-73436
Youngster,
                                                Agency No. A205-118-472
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before:      WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

      Brian Manuel Ordaz, 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 withholding of removal

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction



      *
             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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey,

, 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, 

, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 

, 1031 (9th

Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

      The agency did not err in finding that Ordaz failed to establish membership

in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 

, 1131 (9th Cir.

2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he 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.’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec.

227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 

, 1229

(9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico

does not constitute a particular social group). Substantial evidence supports the

agency’s determination that Ordaz otherwise failed to establish that the harm he

fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder,

, 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.”). Thus, Ordaz’s withholding of removal


                                          2                                     18-73436
claim fails.

       Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Ordaz failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v.

Holder, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); 

(concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT

relief).

       PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                         3                                    18-73436