NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 14 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO TOPETE SANCHEZ,                         No.    16-72619

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A201-237-830

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Armando Topete Sanchez, 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”). Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,


      *
             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).
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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Topete

Sanchez failed to establish the harm he experienced in Mexico was 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”). The

BIA did not err in finding that Topete Sanchez’s proposed returnee-based social

group was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 

, 1131 (9th Cir.

2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social 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 Barbosa v. Barr, 

, 1059-60

(9th Cir. 2019) (finding that individuals returning to Mexico from the United States

who are believed to be wealthy does not constitute a particular social group). To



                                         2
the extent Topete Sanchez raises in his opening brief a particular social group

based, in part, on gender, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 

, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review

claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Topete Sanchez’s withholding of

removal claim fails.

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

Topete Sanchez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or

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

Aden v. Holder, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.




                                          3