NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 10 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MARTINEZ-FIGUEROA, AKA Jose                No.    15-72618
Martines,
                                                Agency No. A070-640-855
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted January 8, 2020**

Before:      CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Martinez-Figueroa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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”). 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, 

, 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 deny in

part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      The agency did not err in finding that Martinez-Figueroa 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))). In his opening brief, Martinez-Figueroa does

not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish that the harm he

fears in Guatemala would be on account of a protected ground. See Martinez-

Serrano v. INS, 

, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically

raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, his withholding of

removal claim fails.

      We lack jurisdiction to consider the proposed social groups that Martinez-

                                           2                                  15-72618
Figueroa raises for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 

, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not

presented to the agency).

      We also lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez-Figueroa’s contentions

concerning CAT relief that he failed to raise to the agency, see 

Figueroa does not contend the BIA erred in finding that his CAT claim was not

properly before it. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 

, 1177 n.5 (9th

Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.




                                           3                                  15-72618