NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 20 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUGO ZACAPU-HERNANDEZ, AKA                      No.    18-72145
Hugo Emanuel Zacapu-Vazquez,
                                                Agency No. A205-490-988
                Petitioner,

 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.

      Hugo Zacapu-Hernandez, 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



      *
             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 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 

, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not err in finding that Zacapu-Hernandez did not establish

membership in a cognizable 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))); 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). Thus, Zacapu-Hernandez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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

Zacapu-Hernandez 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




                                         2                                       18-72145
Aden v. Holder, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary v. Holder,

, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                         3                                18-72145