NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 i mmigration j udge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and re lief 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 APPEALS2 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 questio ns 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 , 37 1 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. Se e 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 Claudio

Guadarrama failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced , or fears he will experience, was or would be on acc ount 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 to3 17

- 70007

have money,” was not cognizable

. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (“ T he applicant must ‘e stablish 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, 10 59

- 60 (9th Cir. 2019) (individuals “returning to Mexico [from] the United States [who] are believed to be wealthy” do es not constitute a particular social group (alterations in original) ) ; Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151

- 52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“retu rning 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 fai led 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.