NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTIAGO CLAUDIO-GUADARRAMA, 

AKA Tomas Claudia, AKA Tomas Claudio, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-70007 

Agency No. A095-807-985 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Santiago Claudio-Guadarrama, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 

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).

FILED

APR 20 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-70007

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 

1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 

512 F.3d 1163, 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, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part 

the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Claudio-Guadarrama does not contend that the BIA 

erred in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination of 

ineligibility for asylum and denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 

706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued 

in a party’s opening brief are waived).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that ClaudioGuadarrama failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced, or fears he will 

experience, was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. 

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 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”).

The agency did not err in determining that Claudio-Guadarrama’s proposed 

particular social group, “returning Mexicans from the United States perceived to 
3 17-70007

have money,” was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (“The 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’” (citation 

omitted)); see also Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019)

(individuals “returning to Mexico [from] the United States [who] are believed to be 

wealthy” does not constitute a particular social group (alterations in original)); 

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“returning 

Mexicans from the United States” does not constitute a particular social group). 

Thus, Claudio-Guadarrama’s withholding of removal claim fails.

We lack jurisdiction to consider any new proposed particular social groups 

because Claudio-Guadarrama failed to raise them to the agency. See Barron v. 

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review 

claims not presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.