NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 9 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAVEL BLADIMIR GRANADOS LOPEZ,                  No.    17-70206
AKA Pavel Vladimir Granados Lopez,
                                                Agency No. A200-974-622
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Pavel Bladimir Granados Lopez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).



      *
             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).
We have jurisdiction under 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 review

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

, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo due process claims in

immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 

, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We

deny the petition for review.

      Granados Lopez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination

that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish any

changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimeliness. See Lopez-

Vasquez v. Holder, 

, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically

raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the

petition for review as to his asylum claim.

      The BIA did not err in finding that Granados Lopez failed to establish

membership in a cognizable particular social group. 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


                                           2
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination that Granados Lopez failed to establish that

the harm he experienced or fears in Honduras was or would be on account of a

protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 

, 483 (1992) (an

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see

also 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, Granados Lopez’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

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

Granados Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by

or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras.

See Aden v. Holder, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Granados Lopez’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights

fails. See Lata v. INS, 

, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to

prevail on a due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                         3