NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 22 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIGOBERTO LOPEZ-ANTONIO,                        No.    17-71870

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-318-858

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

      Rigoberto Lopez-Antonio, 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 asylum,

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

We have jurisdiction under 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,

, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

      Lopez-Antonio does not challenge the agency’s 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 agency did not err in finding that Lopez-Antonio 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

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

supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Antonio otherwise failed to

establish that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected



                                           2
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, Lopez-

Antonio’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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

Lopez-Antonio 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 Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by

the record Lopez-Antonio’s contention that the agency failed to consider

documentary evidence in denying CAT relief.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                         3