NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRINIDAD MARCIAL LORENZO, AKA Jose Almazan, Petitioner,

v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 73508 Agency No. A088

- 884

- 126

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2018 **
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Trinidad Marcial Lorenzo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding for removal,

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes t his case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 73508

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, except to the extent

that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of gov erning statutes and regulations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence

. Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008) . W e deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Marcial Lorenzo

dem onstrated changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a) (4). As to withholding of removal, s ubstantial evidence support s the agency’s finding that Marcial Lorenzo failed to establish a nexus between a protected ground and the harm his family members suffered

. See Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Asylum is not available to victims of indiscriminate violence, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground”); Lolong v. Gonzales , 484 F.3d 1173, 11 80 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2007) ( noting

that evidence of violence directed at an applicant’s family members does not necessarily establish t hat the applicant will be individually targeted for persecution)

. Further, the agenc y did not err in finding that “adult male recent

Mexican non

- consensual returnees” is not a cognizable social group for3 17

- 73508

withholding of removal purposes

. See Ramirez

- Munoz v. Lynch , 816 F.3d 1226,

1228

- 29 (9th Cir. 2016) ( explaining that Mexicans returning home who behave like “wealthy Americans” do not constitute a cognizable social group) ; Delgado

Ortiz , 600 F.3d at 1151

- 52 ( explaining that “returning Mexicans from the United States” is not a cognizable social group)

. Thus , Marcial Lorenzo’s withholding of

removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Marical Lorenzo failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he

would be tortured at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of , the

Mexican government. See Delgado

- Ortiz , 600 F.3d at 1152 ( explaining that generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is insufficient to meet the

standard for CAT relief

)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.