NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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 governing 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). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Marcial Lorenzo

demonstrated changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4).

As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports 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, 1180 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting 

that evidence of violence directed at an applicant’s family members does not 

necessarily establish that the applicant will be individually targeted for 

persecution). Further, the agency did not err in finding that “adult male recent 

Mexican non-consensual returnees” is not a cognizable social group for 
3 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); DelgadoOrtiz, 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.